PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Welcome to an existential thinking thread. Are you ready to tackle big problems? Consider:
Oppression.
War.
Disease.
Pollution.
Global Warming.
Nuclear weapons.
Would we have any of these things if we didn't have so many humans fighting over limited available space on this finite planet? Perhaps, but certainly not to the degree we now see. All of these threats would be far less daunting if we simply had far more space available per human.
We humans have built out all the best locations on the planet. Every junction of two mighty rivers; Every protected deep water harbor. Every pleasant valley. Every mild climate region such as southern California. Every plain which easily lends itself to agriculture. All of it has been developed by humans and is crowded. In Brazil, there is no more available farmland, for the young of existing farmers to work or inherit, so there is a mass exodus from rural locations to the city. And the cities have no jobs for them. So they form vast slum shanty towns where people essentially live as human rats. They paw through the dump for needs, have no sewage system, no electricity, no police, fire, zoning. They squat on treacherous slide-prone slopes and near toxic dumps and landfills. Sadly, most of the world population growth is among the poor, as outlined in this brilliant book by Mike Davis:
Planet Of Slums
And still we produce more and more humans.
It is as if we collectively believe the planet is infinite.
But we know it isn't.
We know there is a limit to the amount of pristine land available for us to build on.
Since it is all built out, we long ago began building in less hospitable places. We developed air conditioning to enable us to live in places previously not considered optimal. Dallas, Texas was nothing until the advent of air conditioning. Miami? A swamp. Hot and miserable. But we found a way around that. Wonderful air conditioning. Air conditioned homes, schools, malls, stores, government buildings, hospitals, and professional offices. And air conditioned cars to transport between them all.
What runs all this air conditioning?
Fossil fuels we extract and burn.
What does all this burning do?
It is loading up our atmosphere with CO2; and that is changing the climate, making the planet even less hospitable, melting glaciers, drying up rivers which depended on them, producing multitudes of climate refugees. Where will they go? It's a major problem. It could lead to a mass die-off oh humans, and a vastly altered planet for those who remain. Why would intelligent organisms do something that makes their own atmosphere less hospitable?
It has likely happened before in Earth's history. Except previously, the organisms had no knowledge of what they did.
3.7 billion years ago, when the atmosphere was mostly CO2, some of the first life forms on the planet were called Stromatolites. These were masses of layered mounds formed by subsequent coatings of cyanobacteria, which were among the first oxygen-producing organisms, employing the process known as photosynthesis. It is hypothesized that Stromatolites produced so much oxygen that they reduced the levels of CO2 required for their own survival. They are now mostly extinct. This process is largely thought to be the source of the change from a mostly CO2 atmosphere to the oxygen-rich atmosphere we know today, which allows human life to exist.
Did a species actually change the atmosphere of the planet? It seems to have happened. Could humans do the same thing? We seem to be doing exactly that.
What if humans had vastly more planet area upon which to live and greater given natural resources? Why then, we would not have to fight over great locations or resources. With ample for everyone, we could all be satisfied with what is available. We would not be cutting down the Amazon rain forest, also know as the Lungs Of The Earth. We would not have to develop poison-laden foods just to feed everyone. Water and air would not be so polluted.
Well, we can't suddenly expand out onto all this unused land nor can we tap into unused resources. It's all limited. After all, the planet is only so big.
But what we can do is limit the number of humans using up all this finite area and materials.
All we have to do is reduce our birth rate.
All humans die in time.
Why can't we pool our collective intelligence, face the facts of our situation, and make a logical plan to make things far better for humans?
It is absurd to think that so many of our major metro areas have water rationing now, and we are doing a good job of conserving, but somehow conservation will allow us to double, triple, quadruple and on and on, our population numbers, and somehow if we don't have enough water now, that there will be plenty for everyone when there are far more of us.
Water is just ONE resource.
ALL of our resources would go a lot further if there were fewer of us.
And we can do that very easily.
Except religion prevents that.
Religions, most of which were formed when the planet appeared so vast it was thought to be essentially limitless, all foster the message that if a few humans are a good thing, then far more of us much be a much better thing.
But it hasn't worked out that way.
Now that people are rethinking if religion is such a good thing, it is time to start looking at our big picture.
And when we do, the only conclusion which can logically be made is that human life would be far better for each individual if there were fewer of us.
All we have to do is agree on this, and limit birth. We have the means. We have the knowledge. It is time to do something to help ourselves and our descendants. And after we do, and we-the-currently-living are dead and gone, they in the future, will thank us. They will record us as the smartest generation ever to live.
This is the greatest thing we can collectively do for humanity.
Oppression.
War.
Disease.
Pollution.
Global Warming.
Nuclear weapons.
Would we have any of these things if we didn't have so many humans fighting over limited available space on this finite planet? Perhaps, but certainly not to the degree we now see. All of these threats would be far less daunting if we simply had far more space available per human.
We humans have built out all the best locations on the planet. Every junction of two mighty rivers; Every protected deep water harbor. Every pleasant valley. Every mild climate region such as southern California. Every plain which easily lends itself to agriculture. All of it has been developed by humans and is crowded. In Brazil, there is no more available farmland, for the young of existing farmers to work or inherit, so there is a mass exodus from rural locations to the city. And the cities have no jobs for them. So they form vast slum shanty towns where people essentially live as human rats. They paw through the dump for needs, have no sewage system, no electricity, no police, fire, zoning. They squat on treacherous slide-prone slopes and near toxic dumps and landfills. Sadly, most of the world population growth is among the poor, as outlined in this brilliant book by Mike Davis:
Planet Of Slums
And still we produce more and more humans.
It is as if we collectively believe the planet is infinite.
But we know it isn't.
We know there is a limit to the amount of pristine land available for us to build on.
Since it is all built out, we long ago began building in less hospitable places. We developed air conditioning to enable us to live in places previously not considered optimal. Dallas, Texas was nothing until the advent of air conditioning. Miami? A swamp. Hot and miserable. But we found a way around that. Wonderful air conditioning. Air conditioned homes, schools, malls, stores, government buildings, hospitals, and professional offices. And air conditioned cars to transport between them all.
What runs all this air conditioning?
Fossil fuels we extract and burn.
What does all this burning do?
It is loading up our atmosphere with CO2; and that is changing the climate, making the planet even less hospitable, melting glaciers, drying up rivers which depended on them, producing multitudes of climate refugees. Where will they go? It's a major problem. It could lead to a mass die-off oh humans, and a vastly altered planet for those who remain. Why would intelligent organisms do something that makes their own atmosphere less hospitable?
It has likely happened before in Earth's history. Except previously, the organisms had no knowledge of what they did.
3.7 billion years ago, when the atmosphere was mostly CO2, some of the first life forms on the planet were called Stromatolites. These were masses of layered mounds formed by subsequent coatings of cyanobacteria, which were among the first oxygen-producing organisms, employing the process known as photosynthesis. It is hypothesized that Stromatolites produced so much oxygen that they reduced the levels of CO2 required for their own survival. They are now mostly extinct. This process is largely thought to be the source of the change from a mostly CO2 atmosphere to the oxygen-rich atmosphere we know today, which allows human life to exist.
Did a species actually change the atmosphere of the planet? It seems to have happened. Could humans do the same thing? We seem to be doing exactly that.
What if humans had vastly more planet area upon which to live and greater given natural resources? Why then, we would not have to fight over great locations or resources. With ample for everyone, we could all be satisfied with what is available. We would not be cutting down the Amazon rain forest, also know as the Lungs Of The Earth. We would not have to develop poison-laden foods just to feed everyone. Water and air would not be so polluted.
Well, we can't suddenly expand out onto all this unused land nor can we tap into unused resources. It's all limited. After all, the planet is only so big.
But what we can do is limit the number of humans using up all this finite area and materials.
All we have to do is reduce our birth rate.
All humans die in time.
Why can't we pool our collective intelligence, face the facts of our situation, and make a logical plan to make things far better for humans?
It is absurd to think that so many of our major metro areas have water rationing now, and we are doing a good job of conserving, but somehow conservation will allow us to double, triple, quadruple and on and on, our population numbers, and somehow if we don't have enough water now, that there will be plenty for everyone when there are far more of us.
Water is just ONE resource.
ALL of our resources would go a lot further if there were fewer of us.
And we can do that very easily.
Except religion prevents that.
Religions, most of which were formed when the planet appeared so vast it was thought to be essentially limitless, all foster the message that if a few humans are a good thing, then far more of us much be a much better thing.
But it hasn't worked out that way.
Now that people are rethinking if religion is such a good thing, it is time to start looking at our big picture.
And when we do, the only conclusion which can logically be made is that human life would be far better for each individual if there were fewer of us.
All we have to do is agree on this, and limit birth. We have the means. We have the knowledge. It is time to do something to help ourselves and our descendants. And after we do, and we-the-currently-living are dead and gone, they in the future, will thank us. They will record us as the smartest generation ever to live.
This is the greatest thing we can collectively do for humanity.
