I care to disagree, and that does not mean I am a facist. Waht a thing to say You say nature would kick in, but science has helped overcome that little safety catch.....
I believe it will kick in eventually, but on a much larger scale.

So, how many people can the Earth sustain Adrian?

---

Quote:And you would be 'okay?' or 'content?' with that?

Well, I have no choice, the same as you

Quote:I don't know where you got that number from...

Before I quote my sources, you need to quote yours....

Quote:Like anyonething whothat hasn't 'achieved?' Nirvana?

Umm, what does this mean?

The carrying capacity of the earth is not a static number.

The issue of overpopulation is not a issue of number of people (yet) but of political and economic basis. There is not too little food, in fact some estimates say there is enough to feed the population one and a half times over. The fact that people on one half of the world are dying of starvation, and that people on the other half are dying of overeating and overindulgence demonstrates the real problem.

And yes, if you support some kind of eugenics or genocide concept because you have been tricked into thinking there are too many people, then you are a fascist, or at least being lied to by fascists.

If mother earth makes the archangel ebola come after us, that is a form of "we have no control" population reduction. But the fact that poor nations are starving isn't out of lack of food, but out of the current need for poor nations. If 80% of the world wasn't poor as dirt, then the 5% could not be wealthy.

(December 29, 2009 at 8:25 am)ib.me.ub Wrote: So, how many people can the Earth sustain Adrian?

It's currently sustaining 6.5 billion. Some of them are dying out, others are breeding exponentially and managing to feed their offspring. What you don't seem to get is that if there wasn't any food, people die (it's a sorry fact of life). Yes, some areas of the world are starving, but these people are still living and breeding. They are getting *some* food.

If a population runs out of food, it declines until food is plentiful enough to support a larger population again. Some areas of the world are running out of food, and I suspect these are the areas that have negative population growth. Nature has already kicked in!

Other areas (the western world) have more than enough food for everyone, since we have mastered farming techniques and mass production of foodstuffs. We have a positive growth rate (through nature). Yes, at one point we may hit the ceiling and won't have enough food, but when that day comes, the population will start to decline as naturally as it has done in the past.

With new technological advances, however, I doubt we will get to that point.

Science has not helped "overcome" nature; that is absurd. Science cannot keep someone alive without food/water in some way sustaining the body. Otherwise we wouldn't even bother eating (what's the point if science can keep us alive another way?) unless it was for pleasure alone.

What science does is give us techniques of increasing food production to sustain us. This isn't overcoming nature. At best, it's overcoming the limited food supplies the Earth would have if farming didn't exist. Indeed, farming techniques use nature to enhance the growth and production of food. We don't overcome nature, we embrace it.

(December 29, 2009 at 6:07 am)Tiberius Wrote: Whether or not the Ice Age has "ended" depends on who you speak to. Geographers say it has; Geologists say we're still in one.

still in one ?.? why do they think so?! its snowed here for the first time in 5 years and it didnt even last that long im confused hmm

Geologists think (at least this is what my geologist flatmate tells me) that we're still in an Ice Age because we still have ice on the poles. The "natural" state of the Earth according to geologists is one where there isn't any ice sheets.

We're on our way out of one, very near the end in terms of ice age lifespans, but not out completely.

ahhhh right, well i guess it makes some sense

Quote:The Earth is not overpopulated. If it were, nature would kick in and the death rate would go up. Plus, science is now growing meat I hear. There is no need to reduce the population, and if anyone tells you different, they are a fascist.

I agree with you up to your final conclusion,which is an ad hominem. A person may disagree AND be a fascist,but a person is not a fascist BECAUSE they disagree,which is how I read your conclusion. Apologies if I've misunderstood.

I accept the arguments for climate change because it seems reasonable to do based on what I've read and seen. I don't claim to understand more than a little of the science.However,I've seen enough first hand in many countries [starting with my own] to accept we fuck up the environment everywhere and it needs to stop.

PLUS more often than not I'm confronted with something like that video which featured a scientist vs a seemingly thick political hack. I had no problem deciding who was the more credible. Ok,that's not quite true; the hack has no credibility with me at all.

@Adrian. So, are you saying there will also be enough water to grow all of this food you talk of!

Quote:We don't overcome nature, we embrace it.

I strongly disagree with this statement.

Quote:to accept we fuck up the environment everywhere and it needs to stop.

I agree with this statement.

(December 29, 2009 at 7:40 pm)padraic Wrote: I agree with you up to your final conclusion,which is an ad hominem. A person may disagree AND be a fascist,but a person is not a fascist BECAUSE they disagree,which is how I read your conclusion. Apologies if I've misunderstood.

Yeah yeah, that bit was mainly in there because I'm pissed off by all the people trying to convince people that we're in some kind of imminent danger, and that drastic actions need to be taken. People talk about reducing the population of the world by almost 85% and all I hear is fascism. I mean, how else would you accomplish such a thing without mass extermination / sterilisation? It's a barbaric idea.

(December 29, 2009 at 11:17 pm)ib.me.ub Wrote: @Adrian. So, are you saying there will also be enough water to grow all of this food you talk of!

Are you some kind of moron? 75% of the Earth is covered in water. We've been converting salt water into drinking water for millennia.

Quote:I strongly disagree with this statement.

Are you going to give a reason why?

Quote:Are you some kind of moron?

I see your flair for the bleedin' obvious is developing nicely.