Anybody think we are 'over breeding' the Planet?

Hello Mott,

Mott the Hoople said:
Those numbers are extremely conservative and probably far off the mark. In North America alone only around 25% of our arable land is even populated. Approximately half the population of North America live in the Continental US east of the Mississippi River and even there the population density is about half that of Europe.

The planets human carrying capacity of the planet far exceeds the numbers the article quotes by 3 to 4 times those numbers. Look at Asia for another example. Of the 4.5 billion people in Asia 3 billion live in China and India with most of their populations concentrated along their coasts. Both nations together represent about 20% of the land area of Asia. Massive areas of northern and Central Asia are still sparsely populated but have the carrying capacity for much larger human populations. They may have unpleasant climates but certainly ones in which large numbers of humans can survive and thrive in.

As for the ecological effects of course those areas seeing large population growth are profoundly impacted. As to why more, that’s a question with no real answer. Because we can? Ultimately humanity is governed by the laws of biology and if human populations exceed the capacity to support life then large numbers of the excessive populations will die until a balance with carrying capacity is reached.
Click to expand...

That is all true, but not desirable. We don't want it to get to that point, because that is when things get really ugly. It is preferable to back off long before that and have things nice. The fewer humans here, the better it is. It's not like we are ever going to approach no humans on the planet due to population management, so that is no concern.

Ever go to a nice attraction on a holiday weekend? Say, you want to go to a popular park, or Mt Vernon, or something like that. Or perhaps just going to the beach in Santa Monica. You had better get up in the wee hours of the morning and arrive long before opening. You will then take your place in line and wait. If you don't do that, it is entirely likely that you will not even get in.

We aren't creating any more of these places, but we are creating a lot more people who want to enjoy them.

We should we aspire to have so many people on the planet that much of our time is spent waiting?

I don't know many people who enjoy waiting.

That doesn't sound like a good quality of life, waiting for everything.

We could all enjoy a better life with fewer of us.
 
Good morning Sirthinksalot,

Sirthinksalot said:
Hi Politalker,

I agree with taking a common sense approach to things. Let's start here in the good old US of A by actively discouraging people who can't afford to pay for their own children from having more. Let's cap all welfare at one child and require sterilization or at least IUD birth control as a condition of receiving benefits. :)
Click to expand...

There is merit to that idea, but it fails to address the purpose of welfare which is to ensure that children don't starve. If some continue to have numerous children, but they only receive benefits for one child, then all of them become food insecure. Maybe we should pay a higher UBI for going childless, and offer group living facilities instead of benefits for those who have children they cannot support.

I wish I had a better solution. I have toyed with the idea of 'Compassion Centers.' Those would be facilities where the food insecure could go to live and have enough food. They would reside in a group home where the emphasis would be conquering poverty by learning skills and having fewer children. Residents could provide child care for one another to free up time for classes and work. And they could focus on the importance of breaking the cycle of cross generational poverty and having children to get benefits.

Somehow we have got to address the problem of rewarding unwed child birth with benefits. Any ideas along that thought?

And why are we only trying to limit population growth among the poor?

Maybe there should be nice tax breaks for the wealthy to go childless or only have one.
 
Truth Detector said:
You should take a drive through Canada some time if you think we are over populating the planet. But not to worry; I am sure when loony leftists are in charge they will engage us in another global conflict that will reduce the size of the planets population. ;)
Click to expand...

It's not crowded in Antarctica either.
Humans don't have to be shoulder to shoulder to destroy the Planet. All they have to do is consume all the resources and degrade the Land, Water, and Atmosphere, to make the Planet uninhabitable.

You've been to L.A., you've driven on the Freeways, when there were more cars, they just added another lane. Your view: "just keep adding MORE lanes, 30 lane Freeways aren't unreasonable".
 
Gonzomin said:
Wrong? Have you looked at the toilet we are turning this globe into? Pollution is making much of the planet uninhabitable. What was predicted is happening.
Click to expand...

Ummm, air pollution levels are nowhere near the level of the 17th, 18th, and even 19th centuries. We've also cleaned up the waterways compared to just a few decades ago. Modern sewage treatment continues to improve, and is world's away from the 18th and 19th centuries. Calm down Chicken Little, and quit making shit up.
 
Jack said:
It's not crowded in Antarctica either.
Humans don't have to be shoulder to shoulder to destroy the Planet. All they have to do is consume all the resources and degrade the Land, Water, and Atmosphere, to make the Planet uninhabitable.

You've been to L.A., you've driven on the Freeways, when there were more cars, they just added another lane. Your view: "just keep adding MORE lanes, 30 lane Freeways aren't unreasonable".
Click to expand...

Poor JackOff; born without a brain.
 
Jack said:
What you say sounds like common sense to me.
There seems to be a lack of consensus on what 'facts' we are using.
If one person claims 'Climate Change' is our Greatest Threat and is caused by 'Human Activity'. And the next person claims 'Climate Change' is a Chinese Hoax and there's more than enough Land for doubling of the World Population, then you're not going to resolve anything.
Click to expand...

That’s an illogical false dichotomy.
 
countryboy said:
Aren't we already doing that? How would leftist radicals like you "control population".

You realize this idea about overpopulation has been pushed by leftist losers for decades and decades, right?
Click to expand...

Yup and they have been right about a lot of things. Ecological and economic degradation, lower quality of life in impacted areas, social and political destabilization, vast economic and social inequality, decreases in biodiversity, etc., besides which since when has scientific observed empirical facts become a liberal conspiracy?

It’s this type of anti-intellectualism and science denial that has driven many scientists out of the Republican Party.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Mott,



That is all true, but not desirable. We don't want it to get to that point, because that is when things get really ugly. It is preferable to back off long before that and have things nice. The fewer humans here, the better it is. It's not like we are ever going to approach no humans on the planet due to population management, so that is no concern.

Ever go to a nice attraction on a holiday weekend? Say, you want to go to a popular park, or Mt Vernon, or something like that. Or perhaps just going to the beach in Santa Monica. You had better get up in the wee hours of the morning and arrive long before opening. You will then take your place in line and wait. If you don't do that, it is entirely likely that you will not even get in.

We aren't creating any more of these places, but we are creating a lot more people who want to enjoy them.

We should we aspire to have so many people on the planet that much of our time is spent waiting?

I don't know many people who enjoy waiting.

That doesn't sound like a good quality of life, waiting for everything.

We could all enjoy a better life with fewer of us.
Click to expand...

I’m not arguing that. As I said that large population growth will adversely impact the environment in the affected areas and beyond. That’s a different topic than the planets carrying capacity of human population. Humans themselves can impact that capacity via technology as we did when we industrialized agriculture and modernized medicine. They are two different but interrelated topics.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Yup and they have been right about a lot of things. Ecological and economic degradation, lower quality of life in impacted areas, social and political destabilization, vast economic and social inequality, decreases in biodiversity, etc., besides which since when has scientific observed empirical facts become a liberal conspiracy?

It’s this type of anti-intellectualism and science denial that has driven many scientists out of the Republican Party.
Click to expand...

Flag on the play, under the hood for review. :bs:
What is scientific about "getting some things right", and yet missing completely on the most dire predictions, such as, worldwide famine no later than the 70's and 80's? Shirley you can't be serious. You people are the true deniers.

"They got some things right"? You could throw darts at a board and, "get some things right.
 
Good afternoon Politalker,

PoliTalker said:
There is merit to that idea, but it fails to address the purpose of welfare which is to ensure that children don't starve. If some continue to have numerous children, but they only receive benefits for one child, then all of them become food insecure. Maybe we should pay a higher UBI for going childless, and offer group living facilities instead of benefits for those who have children they cannot support.
Click to expand...

I'm in favor of anything that prevents fraud and abuse in the system. Having distribution centers that only give out approved foods. Perhaps delivering healthy staple type foods to people instead of giving out cards if they can't get to the centers.

I wish I had a better solution. I have toyed with the idea of 'Compassion Centers.' Those would be facilities where the food insecure could go to live and have enough food. They would reside in a group home where the emphasis would be conquering poverty by learning skills and having fewer children. Residents could provide child care for one another to free up time for classes and work. And they could focus on the importance of breaking the cycle of cross generational poverty and having children to get benefits.
Click to expand...

That would be nice, but I would have concerns about people trusting each other with their kids. And of course, you couldn't allow the fathers to freeload in the homes. Which would be similar to one of the current problems with our system in that it discourages women from getting married.

Somehow we have got to address the problem of rewarding unwed child birth with benefits. Any ideas along that thought?
Click to expand...

That is definitely something we can agree upon.

And why are we only trying to limit population growth among the poor?

Maybe there should be nice tax breaks for the wealthy to go childless or only have one.
Click to expand...

You know I'm always in favor of tax breaks! ;)
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Those numbers are extremely conservative and probably far off the mark. In North America alone only around 25% of our arable land is even populated. Approximately half the population of North America live in the Continental US east of the Mississippi River and even there the population density is about half that of Europe.

The planets human carrying capacity of the planet far exceeds the numbers the article quotes by 3 to 4 times those numbers. Look at Asia for another example. Of the 4.5 billion people in Asia 3 billion live in China and India with most of their populations concentrated along their coasts. Both nations together represent about 20% of the land area of Asia. Massive areas of northern and Central Asia are still sparsely populated but have the carrying capacity for much larger human populations. They may have unpleasant climates but certainly ones in which large numbers of humans can survive and thrive in.

As for the ecological effects of course those areas seeing large population growth are profoundly impacted. As to why more, that’s a question with no real answer. Because we can? Ultimately humanity is governed by the laws of biology and if human populations exceed the capacity to support life then large numbers of the excessive populations will die until a balance with carrying capacity is reached.
Click to expand...

I have firmly believed, for some time now, that a world wide catastrophe would occur, the following would happen:

Let's say the catastrophe kills 25% of the entire population.
1 - Within 30 days 1/3 of those left alive would die, due to other resulting circumstances (disease, injuries, etc.)
2 - Within another 30 days, 1/2 if those left would die; due to them being unable to provide for themselves (finding adequate food and shelter)
3 - Within another 60 days, 1/2 of those left would die, due to being "squeamish" about their food source(s).

I have two cartoons that I want to get drawn, that go along with # 2 and 3.

For #2: we have a group of survivors that stumble upon a store, in the middle of nowhere, that hasn't been looted.
After breaking in, they see rows upon rows of canned goods all covered in cobwebs.
Going down the isles, looking at their good fortune, they turn a corner and see a skeleton sitting down and leaning back against of the rows of shelves.
He's covered in cobwebs also and he's holding a can in his skeletal hand.
The little "thought bubble" above him, says - "I wish I had found a can opener".

For #3: there are a small collection of survivors sitting around a campfire.
The survivors are a mix from society.
One guy looks to be ex-military, there's a young couple with a baby, a woman who appears to be maybe a farmer, another women who's wearing a mink stole, a large diamond ring, and pearls, and finally there's a grizzled old man, who's stirring a large metal pot.
The woman wearing the mink stole, says "What are we having for supper" and the old man says "We got lucky, I found a large turtle, a good sized snake, and two fat lizards" the woman says "Well, I'm not eating that", so the old man goes "Anyone want seconds".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top