(August 13, 2012 at 6:01 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Wasn't just a drought, we hand our hands in that.

"The rain follows the plow" - or so farmers had been told. Food shortages, btw, misleading. What they have is a money shortage. Not always in the way we might imagine, alot of times people would be willing to pay a premium, but it isn't worth shipping them the food regardless (compared to dumping it to a preferred customer with streamlined logistics for pennies on the lb by the metric ton).

It is true that we (filthy American bankers/politicians) had a major hand in the depression, but we don't control droughts. If we hadn't plowed all the grass off the prairies to plant wheat, that would've saved us from the dust bowl, but the drought was coming no matter what. My point is not that overpopulation directly causes drought (global warming does that), I was simply using the imagery to compare the 30's Dust Bowl to the droughts of the future which are going to be far more dire.

On an addition point though: you mentioned the misleading food shortages.
If the powers that be weren't willing to share food in the 30s simply to make a buck, imagine how unwilling the world will be to share food when there's 14 billion of us and it's a matter of life and death.

---

(August 13, 2012 at 2:17 pm)Ace Otana Wrote: Also we only have a few years to do something about it. Higher temperatures will affect sea levels, food production and with an over populated planet we face inevitable war and death.
If that natural storage of methane gas is released, we're finished. It won't matter what we do by then.

You know my solution? Just forget about it, there's nothing you can do about it. Let people think nothing's wrong, they'll see the real world soon enough. Just live your life and enjoy the show.

Actually, there is one solution, but it's extremely drastic. A worldwide pandemic meant to wipe out 95% of the world's population would immediately stop the human race from pumping more shit into our atmosphere. At least then, both the planet and the human race would have a chance.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to die any more than anyone else, but is it morally wrong to kill billions of people, if in the end it saves not only our species but also our planet? Imagine one month from now, there wasn't a boat on the ocean, a plane in the sky, a factory, or even a ceiling fan working. Our planet would slowly but surely begin to heal without billions of people fucking it up and making excuses.

I'm just saying, a government, or some radical group could justify such an act if they felt that the alternative meant certain death for 100% of us.

(August 13, 2012 at 6:21 pm)Ryantology Wrote:

(August 13, 2012 at 12:25 pm)Cinjin Wrote: This to me sounds a bit absurd. Putting faith in technology that does not exist is more than just "optimistic" especially considering that prosperity will not be increasing when nations are killing other nations just to feed the masses. Who's going to invent this technology? How much will it cost to own and operate it? Will all nations be able to afford such technology? I mean it's a ridiculous notion at this point. Meanwhile, while we're fighting to eat, no one's doing anything about the CO2 that's being released from the sea floors because of the global warming that's gone unchecked due to the amount of energy needed to pull more resources from our dying planet.

Not as absurd as it might seem, as I do not feel unjustified confidence that the vague idea I mentioned will work. I consider it probably the only workable possibility. All other ideas are merely limiting the effect, after all (which is, of course, no less important).

I think that any of this technology will be invented for other reasons and find wider applications, as often happens. We need solar energy, as an example, in the worst way, and ubiquitous, cheap photovoltaics could potentially solve a great deal of the world's energy needs, but you can't market it on the basis of saving the world. You have to emphasize its practical benefits. I do not look to technology as our certain savior, just our best chance. I just don't see any other plausible means.

Also, if it makes a difference, I do not plan to have kids.

I do truly hope that these fanciful inventions of science fiction are someday possible too. It would be awesome! But I'm not about to put any kind of hope or optimism into pipe dreams. Our scientists and inventors are too busy building worthless gadgets and making piles of money off of retarded phone apps to get too terribly involved with feeding Africa, let alone the rest of the world.

I believe there is only one answer. Thin the herd. Humans fight nature when it comes to thinning the herd and we are just too damn big. We have to stop breeding.

(by the way, Kudos to you for not having more mouths to feed, even if over-population isn't your reasoning.)

Quote:Sorry, but this planet does not have endless resources, and denying that fact is probably going to lead to our own demise.

'Ours'? If you mean mine and yours,probably not. If you mean x number of anonymous others at some indeterminate time in the future,almost certainly.

I was born in 1947. Ar that time the world population was less than 2.5 billion. Today it's over 7 billion,a terrifying rate of increase.

(August 13, 2012 at 7:51 pm)padraic Wrote: I was born in 1947. Ar that time the world population was less than 2.5 billion. Today it's over 7 billion,a terrifying rate of increase.

You damn Baby Boomers!!

I see that the U.S. population rose from 144 million in 1947 to 314 million today, whereas India's population rose from 335 million then to 1.2 billion today. China's population rose from 460 million in 1947 to 1.3 billion today. Is capitalism part of the reason that the U.S. population only doubled and change, whereas India's quadrupled and China's tripled? Between China and India, 40% of the world population is represented. What is responsible government stewardship in determining population expansion?

Australia went from 8.2 in 1950 to over 21 million today. Most foreigners say "so what,it's a huge country"* This is true,but about 80% of it is dessert. It has been estimated that our optimum population is only about 40 million,although there is fierce debate on this matter.

*Australia is roughly the same size as the contiguous USA ,with 11 thousand miles of coastline.

(August 13, 2012 at 9:50 pm)Epimethean Wrote: I see that the U.S. population rose from 144 million in 1947 to 314 million today, whereas India's population rose from 335 million then to 1.2 billion today. China's population rose from 460 million in 1947 to 1.3 billion today. Is capitalism part of the reason that the U.S. population only doubled and change, whereas India's quadrupled and China's tripled? Between China and India, 40% of the world population is represented. What is responsible government stewardship in determining population expansion?

In fairness, India's government has little interest in its citizens, let alone the over-population of the earth. As for China, I already said that their system isn't working. In truth, the only possible success that any government will have in controlling population is killing everybody off by one means or another.

It has to come from the people. Self-control/discipline, education, and the realization that voluntary sterilization is the only way to thin the herd without forcing the world's governments to kill us all. That and getting rid of religion. The religious fucktards of the world are a real problem. They're just not going to give up their idiotic beliefs about producing offspring for jesus (or whoever). It is not uncommon for a Muslim man to have 10 or more children. Devout christians and catholics of course, feel the same way - that god wants them to keep on breeding. People don't realize how much of a problem this is going to become. In only 10 to 12 years we will have another billion people and far more problems. Problems lead to dipshits praying and signing up for more god-save-us-shit ... ergo, more dipshits breeding for jesus.

I'm definitely for keeping the government out of the loop, but people are going to keep making excuses to keep procreating. Basically, the next generation is going to say the same thing the last did: "It's ok for everyone else, or possibly the next generation, but not me."

How do you propose to institute a regimen of, as you say, voluntary sterilization without government involvement? A Walmart Sterilization Center, where you get a voucher for taking the needle? When the people actually decide they want to be involved in governing themselves, I can see such high-mindedness almost working. I say almost because no population would be likely to forego power so readily as to choose to march toward extinction. The nobility of "diminishing and going into the west" is beautiful in Tolkien, but offers shoes too big for men to fill.

(August 13, 2012 at 7:23 pm)Cinjin Wrote: In fairness, India's government has little interest in its citizens, let alone the over-population of the earth. As for China, I already said that their system isn't working. In truth, the only possible success that any government will have in controlling population is killing everybody off by one means or another.

It has to come from the people. Self-control/discipline, education, and the realization that voluntary sterilization is the only way to thin the herd without forcing the world's governments to kill us all. That and getting rid of religion. The religious fucktards of the world are a real problem. They're just not going to give up their idiotic beliefs about producing offspring for jesus (or whoever). It is not uncommon for a Muslim man to have 10 or more children. Devout christians and catholics of course, feel the same way - that god wants them to keep on breeding. People don't realize how much of a problem this is going to become. In only 10 to 12 years we will have another billion people and far more problems. Problems lead to dipshits praying and signing up for more god-save-us-shit ... ergo, more dipshits breeding for jesus.

I'm definitely for keeping the government out of the loop, but people are going to keep making excuses to keep procreating. Basically, the next generation is going to say the same thing the last did: "It's ok for everyone else, or possibly the next generation, but not me."

Therein lies the rub, no one would be forcing any government to kill anyone. The whole killing folks bit would remain as optional then as it is now. Why shouldn't the enforcers of this population control scheme just kill themselves to make way for a newborn? Laying aside my constant criticism of the idea of population control on the basis of faulty benchmarks - lets assume that we absolutely and unequivocally reached our limit. Leys assume that we could do no more, that we where stretched to threads. At that point, would we start enforcing this policy by violence? Well, judging by our sad history in this regard, probably. Let's be honest, we can't even seem to keep our hands out of each others pockets except by force, ultimately. Even petty crimes which do nothing to imperil humanity as a whole continue unabated. At that point (the point where we leverage force), let me ask you what would be worth saving Cinjin? In a world where human life is so many beans to be counted, what do we have to offer?

To me, the solutions we are likely to field for this problem, no matter how near or distant are so utterly dehumanizing that they leave me asking "who the fuck cares"? I could never tell someone that they just cant have another child. Couldn't bring myself to do it. I wouldn't listen if someone told me that I couldn't have another child. "The greater good" sounds awfully goddamned shitty in that scenario, definitely isn't a pitch that would work on me.

Now, as far as why people have so many children. It is pretty well established that economically dis-advatanged people tend to have more children. I do recall reading about a couple of interesting programs on that front (the location escapes me but you might be able to find more info). The quote "A tree is better than a son" stuck with me from one article I read about one program. However interesting outlayers aside having a large number of offspring is still a viable survival strategy for people with nothing. Kids (despite all the common wisdom to the contrary) are cheap. I couldn't lay the finger on religion for this one. Co-morbidity..lol, yeah, probably, but causal, idk.

(August 13, 2012 at 7:23 pm)Cinjin Wrote: Don't get me wrong, I don't want to die any more than anyone else, but is it morally wrong to kill billions of people, if in the end it saves not only our species but also our planet? Imagine one month from now, there wasn't a boat on the ocean, a plane in the sky, a factory, or even a ceiling fan working. Our planet would slowly but surely begin to heal without billions of people fucking it up and making excuses.

I'm just saying, a government, or some radical group could justify such an act if they felt that the alternative meant certain death for 100% of us.

Logan's Run comes to mind as a reasonable solution, if only temporarily. Seriously though:

TL;DR warning!

Modern cosmology suggests that saving the species is ultimatley futile; big rip, big freeze, big crunch...big certain death for life as we know it. These terms invoke theories regarding the end of the known universe, but say nothing of the dangers invoked by the known universe.

We know our star is middle aged; only about 4.5 billion years left, but this is not the time we, as a species, has left on the clock. Increasing luminosity of the sun suggests that in about 600 million years trees will not be possible because of their unique photosynthesis. There are other species of plants that will last a few million years more, but will this be enough for oxygen replenishment to support 'us'? This of course ignores the potential that flora and fauna will evolve to continue to supply 'us' with enough oxygen, but there is absolutely no guarantee that our symbiotic relationship ensures our future coexistence. Plants will evolve in accordance with their own natural circumstance.

The last bit of projected fact funnels our existence down to less than a billion years, despite how long we think the sun and planet will exist (yes, I took your invocation of 'saving the planet' to mean keeping it in a condition to support us. Earth will outlive us by billions of years). This has not yet accounted for terrestrial or extraterrestrial dangers to 'us'. A decent size supervolcano will make survival of our species a living hell. The same would happen if an extraterrestrial object of sufficient size impacted the Earth. In either case, the Earth will still be here, we wouldn't. The sun could send a significant coronal mass ejection our way that would render our 'modern' way of life unrecognizable and result in a significant population reduction.

My point with this is that if we are serious about the continution of the species then we have to get off this rock, but to what end? What will morality mean if we must invade other worlds to sustain our species at the expense of a more primitive lifeform? Haven't we already projected this? Much of our science fiction invokes an alien race that cares nothing about 'us', only exterminating an obvious nuisance on their way to consuming natural resources. Prime Directive be damned, our survival is more important.

This is all science fiction right now, but not unachievable. Do we ignore fellow 'third world' inhabitants? Essentially stating that you are a strain on our global resource in accordance with our ultimate goal? So much for humanity. Or?????

Do we recognize the futility of the effort of continuing the species and make everyone comfortable until the time nature will take us out?

Quote:It has to come from the people.

That's why it won't happen, Cinj. Way too much "let George do it" as an attitude among people. North America will manage. Europe will manage. Africa is fucked. Asia will be the real tinderbox. Wait until the Chinese and Indians start disputing water rights in the Himalayas. It will make WWII's Eastern Front look like a kindergarten recess.