Click Banner For More Info See All Sponsors

So Long and Thanks for All the Fish!

This site is now closed permanently to new posts.
We recommend you use the new Townsy Cafe!

Click anywhere but the link to dismiss overlay!

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 85

  • Share this thread on:
  • Follow: No Email   
  • Thread Tools
  1. TopTop #1
    hearthstone's Avatar
    hearthstone
     

    Over population, over consumption - in pictures

    https://www.theguardian.com/global-d...on-in-pictures

    From EANTH-L online archives - https://listserv.uga.edu/cgi-bin/wa?...me%40gmail.com

    SURVEY: What should be the sustainable level of human population on Earth? On what grounds would you justify your answer?

    Thanks, Hearthstone.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  2. Gratitude expressed by 4 members:

  3. TopTop #2
    phredo's Avatar
    phredo
     

    Re: Over population, over consumption - in pictures

    Thanks for asking the question. That Guardian article says it all. In trying to find what an "ideal" population should be, we could look at a descending continuum starting with a number where there are so many humans that we cause extinction of humans, to a number where life for humans is extremely unpleasant, to a number where life is somewhat unpleasant because of crowding and environmental degradation, to a number where everyone has the opportunity to be comfortable and the environment is largely intact, to a number where there are too few humans to maintain culture, science and beneficial technological advancement. Looked at this, admittedly simplistic, way, the next to last place is obviously the best number.

    The problems come because there are some other factors and some overlap in the scenarios above. For example, there is the time lag factor where we may think the number now is in the category "life is somewhat unpleasant because of crowding and environmental degradation", but may be actually enough to cause human extinction, since it takes some time for effect to follow cause. A second example is that many people would say that having even more people than present would improve "culture, science and beneficial technological advancement".

    My own ball park figure, since you asked the specific question, would be around 1-2 billion people, many fewer than the 7 billion now. Although you didn't ask how an ideal population could be achieved, even theoretically, I saw the math somewhere once that showed the results of everyone on earth having only one child, and it didn't take very long for population to drop dramatically. But it's all pie in the sky, because nobody wants to do it, neither right nor left, and the future for the short term resembles the old National Lampoon magazine's "weather forecast" on the cover: "Climate: Acceptable; Outlook: Grim"; and it goes downhill from there.


    Quote Posted in reply to the post by hearthstone: View Post
    ...SURVEY: What should be the sustainable level of human population on Earth? On what grounds would you justify your answer? ...
    Last edited by thedaughter; 04-05-2015 at 11:55 AM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  4. Gratitude expressed by 2 members:

  5. TopTop #3
    arthunter's Avatar
    arthunter
     

    Re: Over population, over consumption - in pictures

    We have to be careful with all of this talk of population control ... sure we all want to save the planet and plan for an acceptable future for our children and grand children, but is population the problem? ... I saw a meme recently that stated that the entire world's population would fit in New Zealand ... this fascinated me so I did a bit of research and it seems that this is true ... so space is not the problem ...

    https://www.danlikesthis.info/2013/09/world-population/

    so are resources and waste the problem? ... sure, but we are certainly gaining on all of that ... is it population causing such misery in the world or is it the greed of the people at the top? ... are we destroying the planet or are corporations destroying the planet? ... if there was a reasonable, equitable distribution of resources would there still be poor?

    Also, we have to really look into the supposed solutions to these problems ... this is worth watching ...

    https://standupforthetruth.com/2012/...f-the-elderly/
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  6. Gratitude expressed by 3 members:

  7. TopTop #4
    Valley Oak's Avatar
    Valley Oak
     

    Re: Over population, over consumption - in pictures

    The issue of world overpopulation is not a matter of enough resources, it is a matter of environmental sustainability, which we have surpassed. Yes, we could organize enough food but the planet earth is now overburdened and the carbon footprint is too great.

    I know you do not believe in manmade global warming. I know that you are a Climate Change denialist. But almost 100% of scientists disagree with you and having a discussion about with you is frustrating (or perhaps a waste of time) because you like totally unrealistic conspiracy theories and refuse to listen to the facts.

    The scientific information is out there and it is abundant and irrefutable that manmade Climate Change is an incontrovertible fact.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by arthunter: View Post
    We have to be careful with all of this talk of population control ...
    Last edited by thedaughter; 04-05-2015 at 11:57 AM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  8. Gratitude expressed by 2 members:

  9. TopTop #5
    arthunter's Avatar
    arthunter
     

    Re: Over population, over consumption - in pictures

    Edward,
    I am not a scientist nor do I like "totally unrealistic conspiracy theories" ... I do tons of research and when I see 31,487 American scientists actually putting their names on a petition which denies man-made global warming then I take notice ... here have a look for yourself ... what do you make of this?

    https://www.petitionproject.org/


    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Edward Mendoza: View Post
    The issue of world overpopulation is not a matter of enough resources, it is a matter of environmental sustainability...
    Last edited by thedaughter; 04-05-2015 at 11:58 AM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  10. Gratitude expressed by:

  11. TopTop #6
    arthunter's Avatar
    arthunter
     

    Re: Over population, over consumption - in pictures

    I will add that I do believe in population awareness which stresses the quality of life for all creatures on this planet, I do believe in solar power, wind power and all other clean energy sources ... there are many problems connected to our use of oil, coal and nuclear power and we need to move beyond these things ... and "we the people" are already making these changes when we can ... the idea that this progress can only occur with government intervention is a whole new discussion ... but right now most Americans are deeply suspicious of their government so any mandates might actually hinder progress ....
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  12. TopTop #7
    phredo's Avatar
    phredo
     

    Re: Over population, over consumption - in pictures

    You bring up some good points, but did you look at that Guardian photo-essay? Although much of our environmental problems are caused by capitalism and its ilk, it seems apparent to me that there are just to many people. You say everyone could fit into New Zealand, but consider the huge, unsustainable almost by definition, cities now everywhere in the world, from Asia to Latin America to Africa and including our own North American cities. I don't know how old you are, but I'm 72, and I've seen what seems to me to be a great degradation in the quality of life all over the US because of crowding. I've only lived in Sonoma county several decades, but if you were to ask someone born here 60 years ago how the ambiance is now compared to when she was a kid, what do you think the likely answer would be? How do you feel about it?

    You say we are "gaining" on the problems of resources and waste. Could you provide some evidence? I think we're likely to face great food scarcity soon. Several hundred thousand people are added to the world's population each day, and twice as many acres, at least, of farmland must be added to feed them, plus water, fertilizer, and food transportation. Where is it to come from? So much land is now dedicated to feeding humans that non-human life is decreasing rapidly in what many scientists refer to as a massive die-off. How will this be solved by changing the ownership or organization of resources? Granted, it would be better if land were farmed in small subsistence plots rather than agribusiness, but would that be enough?

    You know that many species have become extinct in recent years. Is that only the result of "greed of the people at the top", Chinese rhino horn hunters and land developers, or is it the inevitable consequence of exploding populations needing food and land?

    I've got more to say and you probably do, too, but that's enough from me for now! If you could say what the main points of the links you gave are, it would save me some time, although I'll try to look at them.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by arthunter: View Post
    We have to be careful with all of this talk of population control ...
    Last edited by thedaughter; 04-05-2015 at 11:58 AM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  13. Gratitude expressed by:

  14. TopTop #8
    arthunter's Avatar
    arthunter
     

    Re: Over population, over consumption - in pictures

    Phredo,

    You bring up some interesting points ...

    First of all, any beautiful location with a great climate is going to grow ... when I first came to Sonoma County, many many years ago, it was empty ... the towns were funky country towns without many frills and the living was cheap ... I almost opened a cafe because I couldn't find any espresso in Santa Rosa ... yes, I remember those days too ... I didn't enjoy watching the county change as more and more folks moved here and settled in, but I also realized that if you live in a post card setting, eventually people will find it (regardless of population numbers) ...

    Before I answer your other questions, I'd like to point out that 1. The US birth rate hit an all time low in 2013 ... https://www.livescience.com/48995-us...-time-low.html

    and 2. "More than half the world's population now lives in countries where the fertility rate – the average number of babies born per woman – is below the replacement level (around 2.1)."

    https://tinyurl.com/mhexohu

    This last Guardian article is really worth reading because it makes several good points ... we are actually in trouble because of our birth rate at the moment because the younger generation is barely supporting the retiring baby boom generation ... this is what happens when the birth rates go from very high, as in the baby boom generation of the 50s, to current levels ... it's actually a very big problem as our financial system is dependent on growth ...

    Another point brought out in this article is that it is "consumption" not numbers which matters and I see people adopting lives of voluntary simplicity, self sustaining practices and extreme waste management ... this alone could change the planet ...

    and then there's this couple ...

    http://<a href="https://www.youtube....CmTJkZy0rM</a>

    I think that most of the problems in our world are due to corporate greed and financial inequality .... we crowd into the cities for financial reasons .....


    Quote Posted in reply to the post by phredo: View Post
    You bring up some good points, but did you look at that Guardian photo-essay?...
    Last edited by thedaughter; 04-05-2015 at 12:03 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  15. Gratitude expressed by:

  16. TopTop #9
    phredo's Avatar
    phredo
     

    Re: Over population, over consumption - in pictures

    I did get a chance to look at the links in your last post. The first was the article about New Zealand holding all the world's population, which I, for several reasons mostly having to do with resources and quality of life, really don't think shows that there is lots of room on earth for more people. We could talk more about that, if you like. The other link featured three videos, one, according to the accompanying verbiage, a fictitious U.N. commercial promoting killing the elderly. Since it was declared to be fictitious, I didn't bother to watch it. The third was described as "showing how Agenda 21 will undoubtedly affect the future of the body of Christ:" Since I'm not interested in "the body of Christ" and it sounded a bit outside the area of this discussion, I didn't watch it either. But I did watch the second video, 14 minutes of Glenn Beck explaining his view of UN "Agenda 21". The main idea I got from it was that he finds that many people involved with it are "socialists", which seems to be a dirty word for him. He also thinks that "sustainable development", if I correctly remember the phrase he repeated several times, is just a code word for "socialism", and he seems especially unhappy that "Agenda 21" would promote "sustainable development" (socialism) through local community action and that people like Van Jones would have something to do with it. I assume the reason you added the link was for this video (not for the fictitious ad or the "body of Christ" videos) and would appreciate it if you could explain just what Beck said that you found interesting and pertinent, because I was a bit mystified.

    Moving on... I liked the Charles Eisenstein article. If it's true that half the world countries have birth rates below replacement level, I'm glad to hear it. He says, as you pointed out, that a declining population is incompatible with capitalism, a statement I agree with. Now I'm going to quote him at length, because he said some things I disagree with:

    "Population decline is welcome news, but it needs to be considered in a larger context. Population stability or decline is not an environmental panacea if it is accompanied by continued growth in consumption.

    This means that overpopulation is a red herring. Of course, at some point, preferably soon, population growth must end, but overpopulation is a diversion from more fundamental issues. Lurking behind the spectre of population growth lies a more challenging problem: economic growth.

    Population control doesn't rock the boat very much; it doesn't fundamentally alter the distribution of wealth and power today. Indeed, it plays into a colonialistic narrative that the fecund masses of the global south are to blame for the environmental crisis, and suggests that the solution is more development (with its population-limiting effects). In comparison, it is far more disruptive to the present world order to challenge economic growth, globalisation, and development."

    He says that the issue of overpopulation is a red herring in that it really doesn't rock the boat very much. But he earlier said that population decline is incompatible with capitalism, which to me sounds like a rather serious rocking of the boat. Naomi Klein recently wrote a book, This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate, on a similar subject, but climate rather than overpopulation, asserting that averting climate disaster is incompatible with captitalism, and she said that was good news, because it means that working to stop climate change will necessarily mean working to subvert capitalism. In other words, it's good news that, by extension to our topic, working to decrease population automatically implies disrupting capitalism. And I think, if there's a "red herring" here, it's Eisenstein's statement, above, that "...it plays into a colonialistic narrative that the fecund masses of the global south are to blame for the environmental crisis, and suggests that the solution is more development (with its population-limiting effects)." Maybe in his mind it plays into that narrative. Not in mine. Although I think that "one child for one couple" would be equitable if everyone in the world were to follow it, but if there was some way that the high-consuming global North could have fewer babies than the "fecund masses of the global south", that would of course be better in many ways for world environmental problems. But "one child for one couple" would probably do the job nicely without having to make refinements. (As I said in my first post, it's really all pie in the sky, because there's no interest or will. I'm just talking about ideal solutions, unfortunately.)

    Eisenstein further states that even bringing down the population to 2 billion would not solve environmental problems if those 2 billion were consuming like North Americans, and I agree completely. I liked your link to the video about subsistence farming in an urban Pasadena and I agree it's the way to go, although I would guess that their chicken, goat, and rabbit feed comes from outside sources. I heard Jon Jeavons, author of "How To Grow More Vegetables....", the "double digging, raised beds" guy, say once that the only hope for the world is for each person to grow her own food, using hand tools and no fertilizer inputs, something he says can be done on 3000 square feet, half the size of a typical urban lot. It may be true. Do you think that would be easier to visualize with 9.5 billion people on earth or 2 billion? And if there were only 2 billion of us, maybe we could environmentally also throw in a few tractors or at least some oxen!

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by arthunter: View Post
    Phredo,You bring up some interesting points ...
    Last edited by thedaughter; 04-05-2015 at 12:04 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  17. TopTop #10
    arthunter's Avatar
    arthunter
     

    Re: Over population, over consumption - in pictures

    Phredo,

    You are right ... it was the Glenn Beck video that I was attracted to. Let's look at the definition of "socialism" ... "a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies" .... would Agenda 21 fall into this category? ... well, are we the people being asked to vote on it? ... do we get a say in our own future? ... are we even aware of the implications?

    And what justifies Agenda 21? ... would that be global warming and over-population perhaps? So are we to believe that our world is so out of control that only our government can fix it ....without our knowledge or consent?

    And speaking of our government, how are we feeling about it lately? ... are we enjoying freedom of the press, and other constitutional rights? ( see the excellent Chris Hedges speech that I posted ) ... seriously, I'm afraid of my government at the moment simply because I'm sharing information and speaking my mind ...

    You see it's all connected ...

    and there are other concerns regarding population control ... it's absolutely fine if we're just restricting births but many, many world citizens are worried about eugenics ... they're looking at constant news stories about chemtrails, dangerous vaccines, ebola, fukushima, police states, military drills, fema camps, laws prohibiting the collection of rainwater, GMOs, smart meters, EMF, laws prohibiting the feeding of the poor ... etc. etc. and they're getting worried about possible covert agendas of population control ....


    Quote Posted in reply to the post by phredo: View Post
    I did get a chance to look at the links in your last post. The first was the article about New Zealand holding all the world's population...
    Last edited by thedaughter; 04-05-2015 at 12:04 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  18. TopTop #11
    phredo's Avatar
    phredo
     

    Re: Over population, over consumption - in pictures

    We're getting a little afield from the topic of the thread, "SURVEY: What should be the sustainable level of human population on Earth? On what grounds would you justify your answer?", but I'll go along. I think that definition of socialism is restrictive. Looking at Wikipedia, I find,
    "Socialism is a social and economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system."
    And when I clicked the link to "social ownership", I got,
    "In socialist economics, socialization is the process of structuring or restructuring an economy on a socialist basis, usually by establishing a system of production for use in place of the profit system, along with the end of the operation of the laws of capitalism. In its most developed form, the concept of socialization entails the end of money and financial valuation in the production process.

    More broadly, socialization is social ownership, encompassing all the various models of resource and enterprise ownership proposed for socialist economies. Usually it refers to various types of employee-ownership, cooperatives or public ownership; but in some instances it refers to a form distinct from employee-owned cooperatives, public ownership and private ownership. Economists such as John Roemer and Pat Devine have advocated for socially owned enterprises as a major component for hypothetical socialist economies, defining social ownership as ownership of an enterprise by those affected by the use of the assets involved. In contrast, Alec Nove defines social ownership as a form of autonomous public ownership. Social ownership is usually contrasted with state ownership, and was used in this way to refer to the model of cooperative enterprise established in Yugoslavia."

    Sorry the quote's so long, but the point I want to make is that "control by the government" is not a part of the above, and I think calling socialism such inserts an unnecessary bias, since many people are understandably suspicious of anything controlled by "the government", especially our government in these times. I am too. I think Beck is making a big stretch when he points to people who have influence in "Agenda 21" as being part of a organization promoting socialism to saying a UN agency which is recommending communities to try to achieve more popular control over problems facing them is part of an overall UN power grab. Now I admit I know very little about "Agenda 21" besides little snippets of web arguments and you seem to have a lot of interest in it and therefore probably know a lot about it, so perhaps you could explain just where UN control enters into the equation.

    Going back to the subject of world population, I don't know of any way to bring about a lower population in any easy or global way. The topic of the thread isn't about that. I would just like to see it a lot lower, and pointed out that if each couple had only one child population would drop quickly. The Chinese made it a country-wide law, and that seemed to work fairly well although it seems that there was a big problem of individual parents aborting female fetuses so they could "try again" for a male child. Other countries, Iran until recently, for example, took a less draconian approach, spending resources on propaganda and birth control.

    Have you ever read any Daniel Quinn (Ishmael, The Story of B)? He had an interesting idea that he said immediately lost him all the "leftists", who otherwise tended to like his books. He pointed out that if one considers a large case of mice with, say, 100 mice in it: if you add more food than 100 mice need to maintain health, pretty soon you'll have a lot more mice. And if you decrease the amount of food, to, say, enough for 80 mice, before long that's the number of mice there will be in the cage. If you do it gradually, you won't starve any mice, they'll just start to have fewer baby mice. You don't need to give them little diaphragms or condoms, it just happens. This is true of any organism, bacteria or whatever. He suggests the same thing would happen with humans.

    It sounds weird and very impersonal, but the idea has influenced my thinking about programs like "the Green Revolution" and other schemes, like GMO crops and large mechanized farm projects, all designed to "fill the needs of a hungry world." Of course, another way that people might find more acceptable is to encourage the education of women, which seems to work well also in places where women are not educated. It doesn't seem to work so well where they already are educated and continue to have large families, like among many religious groups here at home.

    Finally, here's how Wikipedia defines "eugenics": "Eugenics is the belief and practice which aims at improving the genetic quality of the human population. It is a social philosophy advocating the improvement of human genetic traits through the promotion of higher reproduction of people with desired traits (positive eugenics), and reduced reproduction and or sterilization of people with less-desired or undesired traits (negative eugenics)." People may equate ideas to reduce world population with that, but it's not anything I would support and I don't know who does. If you do, please pass it on.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by arthunter: View Post
    Phredo,You are right ... it was the Glenn Beck video that I was attracted to. Let's look at the definition of "socialism" ...
    Last edited by thedaughter; 04-06-2015 at 12:09 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  19. Gratitude expressed by:

  20. TopTop #12
    Shandi's Avatar
    Shandi
     

    Re: Over population, over consumption - in pictures

    I wondered if it's true that when food becomes scarce, people stop having babies, as mentioned here. It doesn't seem that way to me. Sex is a driving force, and conception can happen easily in many women. People are starving, here and in other nations, and still having babies, with no thought about how they will eat. Nature seems much smarter than human beings.

    "Have you ever read any Daniel Quinn (Ishmael, The Story of B)? He had an interesting idea that he said immediately lost him all the "leftists", who otherwise tended to like his books. He pointed out that if one considers a large case of mice with, say, 100 mice in it: if you add more food than 100 mice need to maintain health, pretty soon you'll have a lot more mice. And if you decrease the amount of food, to, say, enough for 80 mice, before long that's the number of mice there will be in the cage. If you do it gradually, you won't starve any mice, they'll just start to have fewer baby mice. You don't need to give them little diaphragms or condoms, it just happens. This is true of any organism, bacteria or whatever. He suggests the same thing would happen with humans."
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  21. Gratitude expressed by:

  22. TopTop #13
    arthunter's Avatar
    arthunter
     

    Re: Over population, over consumption - in pictures

    Phredo,

    I'm sorry if I complicated the issue ...

    I'm trying to reflect the fears that I'm hearing from others who are concerned about the over-regulation of our world ... call it what you like ... Glenn Beck calls it "socialism" but I'm certainly not going to engage in an argument about that term as that is distracting from the point which I'm trying to make ... some call it "fascism" or "state control" and there is very widespread concern about this ... whether we are discussing mandatory vaccinations, the TTP, the police state or any other heavy handed policy which results in a loss of our individual rights and power ...

    So bringing the discussion back to climate change, over-population, and the resulting solution Agenda 21, the fear is that this is more of the same, namely solutions which we have absolutely no power to discuss, affect or change ... solutions which place the power completely out of our hands as citizens of this planet ...

    There's nothing wrong with discussing these problems, in fact that's how it should be ... but part of that discussion should focus on the facts of the problem and that's what I've been trying to do ... so, if we the people decide that we do have a problem, shouldn't we be able to discuss the solutions instead of having them presented to us as a fait accompli? ... that's my only point here ...

    Also, keep in mind that a lot of our recent legislation has followed a possible paradigm which has been labeled as "problem-reaction-solution". There's lots of information about this on the internet. An example of this is 911 and the strategy goes like this. The powers that be want to bomb Iraq, they create 911, people are outraged and support the initiative to bomb Iraq ... problem, reaction, solution ...

    Mistrust in our government is at an all time high with 84% of the people claiming to disbelieve the official story of 911 ... that leads to a questioning of all data and all government mandated programs of "improvement" ... I'm simply reflecting this ...




    Quote Posted in reply to the post by phredo: View Post
    We're getting a little afield from the topic of the thread, "SURVEY: What should be the sustainable level of human population on Earth? On what grounds would you justify your answer?"...
    Last edited by thedaughter; 04-06-2015 at 12:10 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  23. Gratitude expressed by:

  24. TopTop #14
    phredo's Avatar
    phredo
     

    Re: Over population, over consumption - in pictures

    Shandi- I agree with your critique of what I said. I'm probably over-simplifying what Quinn wrote, and also I think Quinn's idea is over-simplified to begin with, but that it has a grain of truth. But let me phrase it a little better. He suggests that whatever conditions people are living in, they must, by definition, be getting "enough" food to eat or they wouldn't be living. (And I put "enough" in quotes because he's not considering what sort of condition they're living in, just that they are alive--those who don't starve but may be ill from malnutrition, and so forth.) Then he says that like any group of organisms, if they are provided with more food than what they are presently consuming, the inevitable result will be more people. So if you wish to not be responsible for increasing population, it is a mistake to provide more food. Of course, the best effort might be to not provide more food (from the viewpoint of not creating more population) and at the same time help the people with the education, medicine, and whatever so that they might maintain their population in a comfortable fashion. Since he believes that population increase is a ticking time bomb with the likely result being a huge die-off in the not too distant future, he sees the basic idea of not increasing the world's food supply as essential to human survival. Looking at the issue from the "problem-reaction-solution" paradigm that Art mentioned in his last post, it's easy to imagine a great deal of programs like food relief, "helping" poorer countries to grow more food by highly technical and capital dependent schemes, huge dams, and the like, as a way for rich scoundrels to exploit a perceived problem, make a lot of money for themselves, and incidentally feed enough poor people to the extent that their populations increase without any change in their circumstances of life, thereby rationalizing another cycle of "trying to save" them. Anyway, as I said, I personally think there's enough truth in Quinn's picture of how things work to make me reluctant to get on board "feed the hungry" plans.

    Art- I agree with your point, and I don't know enough about the "Agenda 21" thing to really judge, but I tend to think it's a far-fetched accusation of UN intent, in this case, and that Beck has the agenda of wanting to head people away from favoring social action and instead sticking up for the rights of corporations to run things. I don't follow them that much, but I've never heard anything from Beck or Fox News to make me think they have any agenda other than favoring the kleptocracy. I'm deeply suspicious of many things our governments, federal, state, and local do, but I think the principle of government acting to "support the common welfare" is a good and valid one. So we have to judge each case on its merits.

    I admit I don't know how we can realize, short of natural disaster, a lower population in a democratic and popular way. A lot of "the ends justify the means" ideas seem to me to depend upon several things, how likely the outcome is if the means aren't taken, how likely the positive change will be if the means are taken, and how drastic the means are. If we knew for certain that we'd all be dead in 20 years if nothing was done, and knew for certain that things would be great if we'd get some sort of world government to outlaw having more than one child upon pain of severe penalties for the offenders, for me the choice would be easy in favor of doing it. But of course, we don't have any of those certainties or even have very good ways to calculate the probabilities. Everyone has their own opinion so probably nothing will be done, and if population catastrophists (where I tend to lodge) are correct, we'll have a big die-off some time before long, and the survivors will look around later and say it's a pity we didn't do something before turning the whole world into a big Easter Island with no trees or other vegetation, wildlife, or potable water. Hope I'm wrong.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  25. TopTop #15
    podfish's Avatar
    podfish
     

    Re: Over population, over consumption - in pictures

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by phredo: View Post
    ... everyone could fit into New Zealand....
    brings to mind the book "Stand on Zanzibar".. same idea, but we've had to go to a bigger island. Good book, too. Prescient in a lot of ways.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  26. TopTop #16
    Thad's Avatar
    Thad
     

    Re: Over population, over consumption - in pictures

    This may be true of mice but not of rats, they start to eat their own babies, in this comparison by all appearances I would say humans have much more in common with the rats.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Shandi: View Post
    ..."Have you ever read any Daniel Quinn (Ishmael, The Story of B)? He had an interesting idea that he said immediately lost him all the "leftists"...
    Last edited by thedaughter; 04-07-2015 at 01:24 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  27. TopTop #17
    phredo's Avatar
    phredo
     

    Re: Over population, over consumption - in pictures

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Thad: View Post
    This may be true of mice but not of rats, they start to eat their own babies, in this comparison by all appearances I would say humans have much more in common with the rats.
    I agree there are some inexactitudes in the comparison, but, just for the sake of argument, wouldn't there be some amount of food that would keep the rat population the same without any abnormal behavior occurring? Of course, having rats in a cage in the first place is stressful, so the experiment would really require creating a great rat environment with the only restriction being the amount of food available. Just sayin' ....
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  28. Gratitude expressed by:

  29. TopTop #18
    podfish's Avatar
    podfish
     

    Re: Over population, over consumption - in pictures

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by phredo: View Post
    ..., just for the sake of argument, wouldn't there be some amount of food that would keep the rat population the same without any abnormal behavior occurring?
    if you're hoping to get to a place where there's some support for the idea that people, given adequate resources and room, will stop competing destructively with each other, you won't find it in biology. Or anthropology. There aren't examples (well, maybe Bonobos, but they're still stuck in their summer-of-love phase) of nonviolent coexistance. We've moved past the nature-red-in-tooth-and-claw model of biology, but only because that was way too simplified.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  30. Gratitude expressed by 2 members:

  31. TopTop #19
    hearthstone's Avatar
    hearthstone
     

    Re: Over population, over consumption - in pictures

    Would you, please check out www.ModelEarth.Org and tell me what you think?
    In it I am suggesting a peaceful way of resolving our differencies ...
    Thanks, Hearthstone.


    Quote Posted in reply to the post by podfish: View Post
    if you're hoping to get to a place where there's some support for the idea that people, given adequate resources and room, will stop competing destructively with each other...
    Last edited by thedaughter; 04-07-2015 at 01:25 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  32. TopTop #20
    phredo's Avatar
    phredo
     

    Re: Over population, over consumption - in pictures

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by podfish: View Post
    if you're hoping to get to a place where there's some support for the idea that...
    I'm kind of hoping to get the thread back to the original question, which was to ask what people think an ideal population number for earth would be along with the implied question of how might that be achieved. My example of a way to do it from Daniel Quinn's novels was meant more as entertainment, because of its drastic,rather cold sound and it's probably oversimple approach. But, as I said, it's caused me to have a certain perspective on pleas that "we must provide more food to feed a starving world" because of the very real, I think, likelihood that "if you feed them, they will come." And, however we decide to treat the problem of hungry people in the world, it seems to me that we should try to avoid helping create more of them.

    And, also, I would rather not fixate too much on the hungry people in the southern hemisphere as if they were the main "population problem", because the worst problems of over-population, in my opinion, are the relatively wealthy consumers of the northern hemisphere, who use most of the world's food and resources and create the most pollution, at least on a per capita basis.
    Last edited by thedaughter; 04-07-2015 at 01:26 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  33. Gratitude expressed by 2 members:

  34. TopTop #21
    podfish's Avatar
    podfish
     

    Re: Over population, over consumption - in pictures

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by hearthstone: View Post
    Would you, please check out www.ModelEarth.Org and tell me what you think?...
    as Phredo points out, we're wandering off target. But since you ask - I think it's a worthy effort; I don't really I want to discourage those trying to move civilization in positive directions, especially when their plans are well thought out. I do often respond when I think I see wishful thinking or flawed logic. Unfortunately I don't think the rats had much to teach us. But to respond (sort of) to Phredo's real question - is our opinion of an ideal population anything more than an idle question? are we to draw conclusions depending on our answers to that?
    Last edited by thedaughter; 04-07-2015 at 01:26 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  35. Gratitude expressed by:

  36. TopTop #22
    Thad's Avatar
    Thad
     

    Re: Over population, over consumption - in pictures

    Well, that's a thought, What if the rats weren't desperate? What desperation lies in taking more than you need?

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by phredo: View Post
    I agree there are some inexactitudes in the comparison, but...
    Last edited by thedaughter; 04-07-2015 at 01:27 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  37. TopTop #23
    Shandi's Avatar
    Shandi
     

    Re: Over population, over consumption - in pictures

    It seems that if you take more than you need, that's just greed....or fear that you won't have enough.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Thad: View Post
    Well, that's a thought, What if the rats weren't desperate? What desperation lies in taking more than you need?
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  38. Gratitude expressed by:

  39. TopTop #24
    Shandi's Avatar
    Shandi
     

    Re: Over population, over consumption - in pictures

    If we come to an ideal number to sustain our population, what might come next?

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by podfish: View Post
    as Phredo points out, we're wandering off target....
    Last edited by thedaughter; 04-07-2015 at 01:29 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  40. TopTop #25
    Shandi's Avatar
    Shandi
     

    Re: Over population, over consumption - in pictures

    Feeding the hungry is something we can do, but what can we do about the wealthy consumers? Are they really the worst offenders of over-population? It seems that it's mostly the poor that have the most children. Is there a back up statistic on this?

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by phredo: View Post
    I...And, however we decide to treat the problem of hungry people in the world, it seems to me that we should try to avoid helping create more of them....
    Last edited by thedaughter; 04-07-2015 at 01:31 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  41. TopTop #26
    Shandi's Avatar
    Shandi
     

    Re: Over population, over consumption - in pictures

    There are many teachings/workshops/groups available on peaceful conflict resolution. So, the resources are there if people really want to learn.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by hearthstone: View Post
    Would you, please check out www.ModelEarth.Org and tell me what you think?...
    Last edited by thedaughter; 04-07-2015 at 01:31 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  42. Gratitude expressed by:

  43. TopTop #27
    hearthstone's Avatar
    hearthstone
     

    Re: Over population, over consumption - in pictures

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Shandi: View Post
    Feeding the hungry is something we can do...
    It might be so that, roughly speaking, two children in a developed country might use as much as ten (or even more) in a third world one.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ical_footprint
    Hearthstone.
    Last edited by thedaughter; 04-07-2015 at 01:32 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  44. Gratitude expressed by:

  45. TopTop #28
    hearthstone's Avatar
    hearthstone
     

    Re: Over population, over consumption - in pictures



    But imagine conflict resolution done on global basis, not only among humans, but also involving humans and all other species! A conflict resolution that would primarily aim to prevent, pre-empt conflicts arising in the first place! ( www.ModelEarth.Org/peace.html ) Hearthstone.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Shandi: View Post
    There are many teachings/workshops/groups available on peaceful conflict resolution. So, the resources are there if people really want to learn.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  46. TopTop #29
    Shandi's Avatar
    Shandi
     

    Re: Over population, over consumption - in pictures

    I don't get how conflict resolution can be done on a global basis, before it's done on a one to one basis. Preventing conflict, (difference between two or more ideas, wishes, etc.) seems impossible. People will not all want the same thing, at the same time, unless they were robots programmed that way. Much of the aggressive conflict in humans may be ego related, and some may be survival related, as in other species.

    Model Earth seems much like Heaven.


    Quote Posted in reply to the post by hearthstone: View Post
    But imagine conflict resolution done on global basis,...
    Last edited by thedaughter; 04-07-2015 at 01:33 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  47. TopTop #30
    hearthstone's Avatar
    hearthstone
     

    Re: Over population, over consumption - in pictures

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Shandi: View Post
    I don't get how conflict resolution can be done on a global basis,...
    You understand the problem: everyone wants something different, but we, collectively, have only one common ground for all of our wishes to manifest (the Earth), and only one collective future, that never ends up to look like any of the individual wishes for future of that whichever individual.
    The answer is to start (and never finish--this goes on forever) to create a vision (a model, a master plan, ...) of what our common existence should look like. This vision (or what would you call it) would become possible, I think, by the virtue of progressively improving enlightened selfishness.
    It's like this: either we resolve our differences harmlessly by creating this common model of what our optimal co-existence should look like, or--we'll continue resolving our differences in real life, causing ourselves real damage (just follow the news!). No--we are not robots, and therefore we can evolve continually ...
    ModelEarth is only a name for my version of the concept ....
    Maybe, if you have a look at an article, "Grass Roots Government--by All for All" - www.modelearth.org/grassgov.html , it would explain the idea better?
    Thanks, Hearthstone.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-19-2011, 10:11 PM
  2. Production/Consumption. Boulding quote
    By Zeno Swijtink in forum WaccoReader
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-19-2010, 08:54 AM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-21-2010, 10:32 AM
  4. The Gospel of Consumption
    By phooph in forum WaccoReader
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-25-2008, 09:14 PM
  5. Passport Pictures - Where get cost effective pictures?
    By Suzanne in forum General Community
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-02-2006, 10:04 AM

Bookmarks