|
|
Post by Nora on Oct 9, 2018 14:37:05 GMT
care to expand? why do you believe its not “a thing”? what about it do you not believe or see as existing or being relevant or able to have a significant impact on the planet and life on it? are you saying there is no number of humans on earth that when reached you would consider as “overpopulation”? |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Oct 9, 2018 14:43:29 GMT
care to expand? why do you believe its not “a thing”? what about it do you not believe or see as existing or being relevant or able to have a significant impact on the planet and life on it? are you saying there is no number of humans on earth that when reached you would consider as “overpopulation”? There would be a number the planet wouldn't be able to support, obviously, but I don't think that we're anywhere near that number. We're not having a population problem yet. We have infrastructure, civil engineering, governmental structure, environmental regulation, etc. problems. We could easily accomodate a much bigger population with better planning/design. |
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Oct 9, 2018 15:01:10 GMT
care to expand? why do you believe its not “a thing”? what about it do you not believe or see as existing or being relevant or able to have a significant impact on the planet and life on it? are you saying there is no number of humans on earth that when reached you would consider as “overpopulation”? There would be a number the planet wouldn't be able to support, obviously, but I don't think that we're anywhere near that number. We're not having a population problem yet. We have infrastructure, civil engineering, governmental structure, environmental regulation, etc. problems. We could easily accomodate a much bigger population with better planning/design. to me we have all of those problems. just because we have not reached the number yet doesnt mean its not a real threat/ valid concern (and of course it doesnt mean we dont have other problems, maybe even in a more advanced stages). i agree that with better planning, design (and wealth distribution and some other changes in overall regulation) we could accomodate more than we think. but to me, thinking this way alrewady means we both recognize overpopulation is a thing but we look for solutions and believe there are tools to help it from becoming a life threatening problem. I mean other tooks than Thanosgeddon  But maybe some upleasant and unpopular constraints will have to be put in place in order to Avoid getting to the number. I see this as a totally valid and needed topic for humans to discuss and address. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Oct 9, 2018 15:05:19 GMT
There would be a number the planet wouldn't be able to support, obviously, but I don't think that we're anywhere near that number. We're not having a population problem yet. We have infrastructure, civil engineering, governmental structure, environmental regulation, etc. problems. We could easily accomodate a much bigger population with better planning/design. to me we have all of those problems. just because we have not reached the number yet doesnt mean its not a real threat/ valid concern (and of course it doesnt mean we dont have other prpblems, maybe even in a more advanced stages). i agree that with better planning, design (and wealth distribution and some other changes i. overall regulation) we could accomodate more than we think. but to me, thinking this way alrewady means we both recognize overpopulation is a thing but we look for solutions and believe there are tools to help it from becoming a life threatening problem. I mean other tooks than Thanosgeddon Well, we could have serious problems with a much smaller population, too--like say, a million people. It would depend on just what environmental impact the people in question are having. We could have only a million people on the planet where a couple thousand of them are spending all of their time tearing down all forests on the planet with automated machinery, another thousand are pumping tons and tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every minute, etc. It wouldn't have to take many people to ruin a planet. But would we say that a million is overpopulation? |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Oct 9, 2018 15:07:08 GMT
You couldn't be more correct, Rachel. Illiteracy, lack of family planning, desire for sons etc. etc. are what causes it in developing or underdeveloped countries. It can cause a lot of problem. What idealists do not understand is that the belief that earth's resources are enough to support existing population is only good in theory. The actual poor families who go on producing kids in places such as Bangladesh or India or Africa cannot afford to give any decent bringing up to many kids. Not every country in the world has proper government support and all that. There are many countries where standard of living has sharply increased since governments took action to decrease growth rate of population. That said everything should be balanced and so countries have to see that population growth doesn't decrease so much that you introduce newer problems such as lack of youths in economy and ageing population. Japan has had to face some problems because of that. That said the poorest of countries will do much better by implementing good population planning measures. |
|
|
|
Post by hanswilm on Oct 9, 2018 15:09:28 GMT
That's not liberty, that's tyranny.
|
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Oct 9, 2018 15:26:50 GMT
You couldn't be more correct, Rachel. Illiteracy, lack of family planning, desire for sons etc. etc. are what causes it in developing or underdeveloped countries. It can cause a lot of problem. What idealists do not understand is that the belief that earth's resources are enough to support existing population is only good in theory. The actual poor families who go on producing kids in places such as Bangladesh or India or Africa cannot afford to give any decent bringing up to many kids. Not every country in the world has proper government support and all that. There are many countries where standard of living has sharply increases since governments took action to decrease growth rate of population. That said everything should be balanced and so countries have to see that population growth doesn't decrease so much that you introduce newer problems such as lack of youths in economy and ageing population. Japan has had to face some problems because of that. That said the poorest of countries will do much better by implementing good population planning measures. ^^^This^^^ covers all points pro and con. It is a complex issue, and needs to be addressed globally, and soon. |
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Oct 9, 2018 15:55:05 GMT
What does it matter how? Isn't the main issue if?
You're kind of avoiding my main point. Why is it stupid to try and control human population, but not stupid to try to control animal populations?
People like to think they're special. In every possible way. As a species, country, race, religion, whatever. All true.
Does that mean you'd support population control for all species?
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Oct 9, 2018 16:34:35 GMT
You couldn't be more correct, Rachel. Illiteracy, lack of family planning, desire for sons etc. etc. are what causes it in developing or underdeveloped countries. It can cause a lot of problem. What idealists do not understand is that the belief that earth's resources are enough to support existing population is only good in theory. The actual poor families who go on producing kids in places such as Bangladesh or India or Africa cannot afford to give any decent bringing up to many kids. Not every country in the world has proper government support and all that. There are many countries where standard of living has sharply increases since governments took action to decrease growth rate of population. That said everything should be balanced and so countries have to see that population growth doesn't decrease so much that you introduce newer problems such as lack of youths in economy and ageing population. Japan has had to face some problems because of that. That said the poorest of countries will do much better by implementing good population planning measures. ^^^This^^^ covers all points pro and con. It is a complex issue, and needs to be addressed globally, and soon. Meh, there's no solution to it and the crisis is hyped up in the first place. Even China and India have enough food and land for their populations. They suck for far more reasons than people having kids. Start with those and then start discussing the ridiculous notion of telling people how they should raise their families. |
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Oct 9, 2018 16:55:35 GMT
That's not liberty, that's tyranny. Is it tyranny when we decide to control other species’ populations as well? |
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Oct 9, 2018 17:00:08 GMT
Why do people scoff at it: (1) Because a lot of people don't want the government to be able to dictate what they can choose to consensually do (some people don't want that wholesale, others are more selective and sometimes inconsistent about it, but nevertheless, there's a core belief about this in at least some arenas), (2) Because a lot of people already have a problem with taxes as is, and government excuses to tax us even more, in different areas, aren't going to be met with open arms. People don't have the same problem with the idea of population control of bears, say, because they're bears, they're not people. And most folks are concerned with bear population increases only because it leads to bears coming into suburban developments looking for food. This isn't an argument. It's pretty much the definition of racist if you said the same thing about people with a specific skin color; rather than an animal species. This line of thinking has no merit. There's no logic to it whatsoever. |
|
|
|
Post by koskiewicz on Oct 9, 2018 18:25:34 GMT
100 years ago there were 1.2 billion people on planet earth.
In 2018, there are 7 billion + on planet earth despite world wars and murder and mayhem.
Exponentially, there are that many more nut cases out there creating mayhem than there were 100 years ago. So yes, overpopulation is a SEVERE problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Oct 9, 2018 19:38:33 GMT
I would hope that the fact that it may not be a problem in the US doesnt stop people from seeing it as a problem, since it is a problem elsewhere. I honestly hope I will live to see the day when people fully recognize they are humans first, and citizens of a particular nation second. this is a problem for humans to pay attention to and address and prevent from getting too serious.
|
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Oct 9, 2018 19:39:25 GMT
A lack of objectivity seems reasonable to you? [/div]
Nothing in those articles indicates that overpopulation is actually a thing.
[/quote]Global warming is not tied to population in any but the most general sense.[/quote][/div]
You say things like "I don't see it" and "I don't believe" a lot.
|
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Oct 9, 2018 19:44:47 GMT
I would hope that the fact that it may not be a problem in the US doesnt stop people from seeing it as a problem, since it is a problem elsewhere. I honestly hope I will live to see the day when people fully recognize they are humans first, and citizens of a particular nation second. this is a problem for humans to pay attention to and address and prevent from getting too serious. People can't even come up with a better argument than, "Well bears/horses/whatever are bears/horses/whatever and I'm a human, so...." and you think they can look beyond regional tribalism? |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Oct 9, 2018 20:01:40 GMT
Why do people scoff at it: (1) Because a lot of people don't want the government to be able to dictate what they can choose to consensually do (some people don't want that wholesale, others are more selective and sometimes inconsistent about it, but nevertheless, there's a core belief about this in at least some arenas), (2) Because a lot of people already have a problem with taxes as is, and government excuses to tax us even more, in different areas, aren't going to be met with open arms. People don't have the same problem with the idea of population control of bears, say, because they're bears, they're not people. And most folks are concerned with bear population increases only because it leads to bears coming into suburban developments looking for food. This isn't an argument. It's pretty much the definition of racist if you said the same thing about people with a specific skin color; rather than an animal species. This line of thinking has no merit. There's no logic to it whatsoever. It's speciesist, and I don't think that many people would shy away from the idea of being a speciesist. I'm a speciesist, too. Are you a PETA member by any chance? |
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Oct 9, 2018 20:06:38 GMT
"... and you think they can look beyond regional tribalism?"
No, I don't. Our brains may be bigger than those of bears and wild horses, but sadly I don't think our brains are big enough. Until the majority of humans can see the issue clearly, we will continue to do nothing until it is too late. I hope I'm long gone when the sh!t hits the fan. I used to have hope that it wouldn't. I'm glad I didn't bring any children into this world.
|
|
|
|
Post by Xcalatë on Oct 9, 2018 20:11:42 GMT
//I honestly hope I will live to see the day when people fully recognize they are humans first, and citizens of a particular nation second. this is a problem for humans to pay attention to and address and prevent from getting too serious.//
Most people have a hard time thinking outside their own Bubble (family, religion, nationality, race etc..) So this will never happen, we are inherently selfish creatures and as a Whole Humanity is just as selfish and destructive when it comes to the planet. But who am I to judge, I'm also a selfish Human and consider myself kind of a Misanthrope so I think we/the environment are fucked no matter what.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Oct 9, 2018 20:37:14 GMT
//I honestly hope I will live to see the day when people fully recognize they are humans first, and citizens of a particular nation second. this is a problem for humans to pay attention to and address and prevent from getting too serious.//Most people have a hard time thinking outside their own Bubble (family, religion, nationality, race etc..) So this will never happen, we are inherently selfish creatures and as a Whole Humanity is just as selfish and destructive when it comes to the planet. But who am I to judge, I'm also a selfish Human and consider myself kind of a Misanthrope so I think we/the environment are fucked no matter what. you see, that is where we differ. its a point of view. i not only believe it will happen, i believe it will happen in the next 50 or so years. I dont deny that people are selfish creatures (desire to survive is selfish in its core) but we can be selfish and at the same time want to address concerns like overpopulation or damage to the environment. those are not mutually exclusive. its all about to what extent we are selfish. And I believe that with more focus on educating people in this field, more people will chose to be active in it too. Plus - unless we change our ways more substantially I believe at a certain point it will become clearly selfish to actively participate in protecting the environment because the environment will be SO BAD for everybody, that you will have to do things mainly to improve your own situation. so why not be selfish that way preventively. All it takes is including a "visionary" to the list of labels one puts on themselves already. You can still be all the others things. Selfish, misanthropic, pessimistic AND a visionary. |
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Oct 10, 2018 13:48:03 GMT
This isn't an argument. It's pretty much the definition of racist if you said the same thing about people with a specific skin color; rather than an animal species. This line of thinking has no merit. There's no logic to it whatsoever. It's speciesist, and I don't think that many people would shy away from the idea of being a speciesist. I'm a speciesist, too. Are you a PETA member by any chance?Nope.
As I said before, prejudice has no merit. It's not a belief formed on any rational or logical information. I'm actually surprised that he would not only go that route, but copout so early since you like to argue.
|
|
