The Need to Breed

[The Grand Nudger]

That's the second time you posted that, yeah?

[Shell B]

Well, CD, then our method of population control would be to control immigration to the point where it is only at par with the replacement fertility rate.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well..we do have that lovely wall we've been building......(though I have to say, doesn't seemed to have worked for the chinese, and their wall was more impressive).

[Jackalope]

Well, CD, then our method of population control would be to control immigration to the point where it is only at par with the replacement fertility rate.

As porous as our borders are... good luck with that!

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, CD, then our method of population control would be to control immigration to the point where it is only at par with the replacement fertility rate.

To what end btw? Why do we need to control our population? Why are we looking to cut off immigration to this nation of immigrants?
(our immigrant population consumes far less per capita btw...poverty and all)

[Shell B]

I'm not looking to cut off immigration. Why would I? I was being facetious.

[Cinjin]

If overpopulation does become a problem in the future, then I think that it's going to be a hopeless situation.

We don't need to just slow our growth. We need to stop growing. We are at capacity.

No, human population isn't a factor.

No no you're right. Our atmosphere is in the exact same shape it was in the 1600's, as well as our water, animal species, glaciers, etc etc. Population is clearly NOT a factor.

a global population that was 1 billion in 1800 and 4 billion in 1980 will probably have grown to 10 billion by the end of this century; the demand for food will have doubled by 2050; food production already accounts for 30% of greenhouse gases – more than manufacturing or transport; more food needs more land, especially when the food is meat; more fields mean fewer forests, which means even more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which means an even less stable climate, which means less reliable agriculture

Most biologists agree we’re in the midst of the Earth’s sixth mass extinction event; species are disappearing about 1,000 times faster than is typical of the planet’s history. This time, though, it isn’t because of geologic or cosmic forces but unsustainable human population growth.

We’ve already witnessed the devastating effects of overpopulation on biodiversity: Species abundant in North America two centuries ago — from the woodland bison of West Virginia and Arizona’s Merriam’s elk to the Rocky Mountain grasshopper and Puerto Rico’s Culebra parrot — have been wiped out by growing human numbers.

Notice that we didn't mention climate change above, or the exploding population/consumption levels that are triggering it — the two major factors threatening humanity's future.

In “Why Have Children?: The Ethical Debate” (M.I.T. Press), Christine Overall tries to subject that decision to morally rigorous analysis. Overall, who teaches philosophy at Queen’s University, in Ontario, dismisses the notion that childbearing is “natural” and therefore needs no justification. “There are many urges apparently arising from our biological nature that we nonetheless should choose not to act upon,” she observes. If we’re going to keep having kids, we ought to be able to come up with a reason.

[The Grand Nudger]

No no you're right. Our atmosphere is in the exact same shape it was in the 1600's, as well as our water, animal species, glaciers, etc etc. Population is clearly NOT a factor.

So..., still no explanation forthcoming on the very simple objections I raised, just restating the claim?

a global population that was 1 billion in 1800 and 4 billion in 1980 will probably have grown to 10 billion by the end of this century; the demand for food will have doubled by 2050; food production already accounts for 30% of greenhouse gases – more than manufacturing or transport; more food needs more land, especially when the food is meat; more fields mean fewer forests, which means even more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which means an even less stable climate, which means less reliable agriculture

You should take a look at what goes into the "food production" classifications and the issue becomes a "no shit this is ridiculously stupid" sort of thing. More food most definitely does not need more land. The author of that quote is a blithering fucking idiot. Firstly, vertical hydro, secondly, integrated aquaculture...just for starters. "Reliable ag" is heavy on climate controlled production, not waiting for the rain god to favor us. That little farm I'm fond of linking slideshows to uses 1/10th of the water of 1 acre under conventional management and produces 4 times the food. If our current situation is "the limit" then your numbers are off. Were at 1/10th of the water limit, 1/4 of the food limit. I'll split the difference, but it looks like we can fit a few more warm bodies on this rock based on those metrics. As a nice bonus, the business model eliminated the large majority of pollution concerns.

Most biologists agree we’re in the midst of the Earth’s sixth mass extinction event; species are disappearing about 1,000 times faster than is typical of the planet’s history. This time, though, it isn’t because of geologic or cosmic forces but unsustainable human population growth.

We’ve already witnessed the devastating effects of overpopulation on biodiversity: Species abundant in North America two centuries ago — from the woodland bison of West Virginia and Arizona’s Merriam’s elk to the Rocky Mountain grasshopper and Puerto Rico’s Culebra parrot — have been wiped out by growing human numbers.

Strange, and here I thought that bullets, lack of game management, and poor (honestly, non-existent) conservation policies did in the bison (and a whole host of others). Though, in the end, you should know me well enough by now..if I have to choose between the Rocky Mountain Grasshopper and even the shittiest of human beings, I'll take the human beings. I didn;t realize that every time a baby was born the cosmos killed a kitten...I really didn't.

Notice that we didn't mention climate change above, or the exploding population/consumption levels that are triggering it — the two major factors threatening humanity's future.

In “Why Have Children?: The Ethical Debate” (M.I.T. Press), Christine Overall tries to subject that decision to morally rigorous analysis. Overall, who teaches philosophy at Queen’s University, in Ontario, dismisses the notion that childbearing is “natural” and therefore needs no justification. “There are many urges apparently arising from our biological nature that we nonetheless should choose not to act upon,” she observes. If we’re going to keep having kids, we ought to be able to come up with a reason.

If we're going to keep breathing....we ought to be able to come up with a reason. Look, Cin, these quotes come from people with agendas to pursue (and that's fine, I have my own - but it bears mentioning), I question the assumptions used to reach the conclusions, perhaps you should start fleshing those assumptions out for me, handle my objections. You aren't bringing me any eye opening info, this stuff hasn't completely escaped my radar leaving me bewildered as to how we ended up where we are.

[Cinjin]

If we're going to keep breathing....we ought to be able to come up with a reason. Look, Cin, these quotes come from people with agendas to pursue ... [/quote}

What agenda? Keeping a balance between humans, plants, animals, and the earth itself? Yeah, I hope so. I'm all for that agenda.

(and that's fine, I have my own - but it bears mentioning), I question the assumptions used to reach the conclusions, perhaps you should start fleshing those assumptions out for me, handle my objections. You aren't bringing me any eye opening info, this stuff hasn't completely escaped my radar leaving me bewildered as to how we ended up where we are.

What objections have you handed me to deal with? We've already concluded our debate regarding forced population control. I'm not beating that horse. I am merely refuting your statement that quote, "human population is not a factor."

It very clearly is a factor, and that alone is what those articles are posted for. You (and a few others) seem to get so caught up in the amount of food available for future human use, when that is just one of the lesser issues. I'm only refuting ONE of your statements. It is painfully clear that human population is very much a factor in the welfare and balance of life on this planet.

Let me dumb it down (not that you require that, but humor me). Human population, not a factor right? So 100 thousand people or 10 billion people ... doesn't matter, because it's not a factor?

Come on man, why are you trying to sell me that?

[The Grand Nudger]

Same ones I've been repeating over and over again.

Are we at our limit, or are we at the limit of technology and methods that are outdated and well within our ability to replace/modify?

If overpopulation is so threatening to our environment then how did so few of us (You and me, good ole America) manage to handle so much of the devastation by itself? Is it possible that the overall population is nowhere near as pressing as the various activities of that population -even if it is only a small portion of them engaging in any given activity-?

I'm not selling anything. I'll say the same thing to you that I just said to Shell. If resource consumption was evenly spread then 10 million or 10 billion would matter, but when 10 million can consume more resources than another 10 billion have ever even seen....then it isn't the 10 billion that's the issue. The human population at large is not responsible for the great brunt of the damage we see, a small portion of us are. The damage that we do see, which is a product of our population (sprawl for example) isn't exactly some mysterious thing that we're at a loss to remedy. Some things, once done, cannot be undone, granted. But going forward......we could do a hell of alot better, wouldn't you agree?