anotherneil
Well-Known Member
Ok, all I had to do was go in to around the 1:20 mark in this OP video, and already she's either being dishonest, or she's ignorant. She makes the false claim that "we've decided not to talk about it," despite that I've always been hearing about it throughout my life in many different ways.
Regarding the thread title, why is it anyone's burden to convince someone that something is not happening? You're asking someone to prove a negative. It's on you to prove that there is overpopulation, for one thing. Even if you could prove that there is indeed overpopulation, so what?
Wait - back up - it's not that simple. Who decides what the criteria is for overpopulation?
One issue with making the threshold for overpopulation as a function of available resources is that the threshold for overpopulation could be only 1 person. If there's not enough resources for 1 person, then there's overpopulation with a population of only 1 person.
Wait, there's more! What action do the overpopulation alarmists want to take? Who do they work for, multi-billionaires such as Bill Gates?
I've heard critics of overpopulation alarmism assert that the uber-wealthy want to reduce the population. BTW what ever happened to that Georgia Guidestones thing after it was destroyed or vandalized or whatever?
Anyhow, who am I to say that what the critics of overpopulation alarmism are claiming is nonsense, given the existence of things like the Georgia Guidestones and the actions being taken by the uber-wealthy? They seem to make a valid point.
Regardless of whether or not anyone wants to dismiss the claims or observations being pointed out by critics of overpopulation alarmism, the solution is not necessarily to reduce the population, and it's not the only solution.
Overpopulation may just be one of countless struggles of life; there's also disease, crime, war & violent conflict, climate change, social & political instability, poverty & economic inequality, racism, bigotry, social injustice, technological disruption, lack of equal access to education, etc.
Humanity has a degree of problem-solving skills and creativity that isn't found in the rest of nature. We can and have found solutions to problems that don't involve planet-wide genocide.
For example, one way we fight disease is by learning and practicing science to find cures, treatments, vaccines, other ways of shielding ourselves from disease, learning what causes disease so we can avoid the sources, and other preventative measures; we don't resort to slaughtering people infected with a contagious plague, and many individuals don't decide to be childless for the sake of preventing them from suffering.
One solution made possible by the Internet is making education far more easily accessible than before.
Regarding having children, even in Red China they didn't ban people from procreating (they had a policy of allowing 1 child per couple, and that had the "unintended" consequences of its overall population keeping much fewer girls). Every couple in the world would need to have 2 children just to keep the population at the same level; if every couple only had one child, that would result in a population drop rate of half per generation. My point here is that if a couple is concerned about overpopulation, they don't need to resort to having 0 children; they can still have 1 child and it's not going to increase the population at the generational level - it still reduces by half.
Climate change consequences is closely related to overpopulation; there's a lot of overlap between the two issues. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a greenhouse gas (GHG), human beings produce CO2, and it does play a role in changing the climate and global warming; these are scientific facts. However, climate change has been happening ever since the planet developed an atmosphere 4 - 5 billion years ago, and the existence of life on the planet has played a role in changing the climate ever since life developed on the planet; these are also scientific facts. BTW, CO2 is not the only GHG; water vapor (H2O-g) is also a GHG; not only does H2O-g play a more powerful or dominant role in trapping heat, but by forming into clouds, it also has a cooling effect by reflecting sunlight away; this is yet more scientific fact.
One solution for mitigating climate change consequences is to make sacrifices (the type of solution for which religion seems to have an affinity), such as paying "carbon" taxes, banning vehicles with internal combustion engines and use of so-called "fossil fuels." Not only is this not the only solution, but it seems like it's just a solution designed to only benefit crony capitalists, especially when one takes into account how they'll still fly their private jets - even to fly around the world to conferences for "battling climate change," attack "climate change denier" strawmen, and get people to chase red herrings such as whether or not they own or bought the private jets that they use by making that the highlight or focus of a news story. Just like there are much better solutions to dealing with contagious diseases and lack of access to education, there are also solutions to the problems caused by climate change.
The overpopulation and climate change alarmism narratives are similar, including the way they are religious. If we don't stop overpopulation, we're going to starve to death. If we don't pay carbon credits, we're all going to burn to death. If we don't pay for our sins, we'll burn in hell.
Religion and government bans don't produce solutions; science and technology do produce solutions.
Regarding the thread title, why is it anyone's burden to convince someone that something is not happening? You're asking someone to prove a negative. It's on you to prove that there is overpopulation, for one thing. Even if you could prove that there is indeed overpopulation, so what?
Wait - back up - it's not that simple. Who decides what the criteria is for overpopulation?
One issue with making the threshold for overpopulation as a function of available resources is that the threshold for overpopulation could be only 1 person. If there's not enough resources for 1 person, then there's overpopulation with a population of only 1 person.
Wait, there's more! What action do the overpopulation alarmists want to take? Who do they work for, multi-billionaires such as Bill Gates?
I've heard critics of overpopulation alarmism assert that the uber-wealthy want to reduce the population. BTW what ever happened to that Georgia Guidestones thing after it was destroyed or vandalized or whatever?
Anyhow, who am I to say that what the critics of overpopulation alarmism are claiming is nonsense, given the existence of things like the Georgia Guidestones and the actions being taken by the uber-wealthy? They seem to make a valid point.
Regardless of whether or not anyone wants to dismiss the claims or observations being pointed out by critics of overpopulation alarmism, the solution is not necessarily to reduce the population, and it's not the only solution.
Overpopulation may just be one of countless struggles of life; there's also disease, crime, war & violent conflict, climate change, social & political instability, poverty & economic inequality, racism, bigotry, social injustice, technological disruption, lack of equal access to education, etc.
Humanity has a degree of problem-solving skills and creativity that isn't found in the rest of nature. We can and have found solutions to problems that don't involve planet-wide genocide.
For example, one way we fight disease is by learning and practicing science to find cures, treatments, vaccines, other ways of shielding ourselves from disease, learning what causes disease so we can avoid the sources, and other preventative measures; we don't resort to slaughtering people infected with a contagious plague, and many individuals don't decide to be childless for the sake of preventing them from suffering.
One solution made possible by the Internet is making education far more easily accessible than before.
Regarding having children, even in Red China they didn't ban people from procreating (they had a policy of allowing 1 child per couple, and that had the "unintended" consequences of its overall population keeping much fewer girls). Every couple in the world would need to have 2 children just to keep the population at the same level; if every couple only had one child, that would result in a population drop rate of half per generation. My point here is that if a couple is concerned about overpopulation, they don't need to resort to having 0 children; they can still have 1 child and it's not going to increase the population at the generational level - it still reduces by half.
Climate change consequences is closely related to overpopulation; there's a lot of overlap between the two issues. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a greenhouse gas (GHG), human beings produce CO2, and it does play a role in changing the climate and global warming; these are scientific facts. However, climate change has been happening ever since the planet developed an atmosphere 4 - 5 billion years ago, and the existence of life on the planet has played a role in changing the climate ever since life developed on the planet; these are also scientific facts. BTW, CO2 is not the only GHG; water vapor (H2O-g) is also a GHG; not only does H2O-g play a more powerful or dominant role in trapping heat, but by forming into clouds, it also has a cooling effect by reflecting sunlight away; this is yet more scientific fact.
One solution for mitigating climate change consequences is to make sacrifices (the type of solution for which religion seems to have an affinity), such as paying "carbon" taxes, banning vehicles with internal combustion engines and use of so-called "fossil fuels." Not only is this not the only solution, but it seems like it's just a solution designed to only benefit crony capitalists, especially when one takes into account how they'll still fly their private jets - even to fly around the world to conferences for "battling climate change," attack "climate change denier" strawmen, and get people to chase red herrings such as whether or not they own or bought the private jets that they use by making that the highlight or focus of a news story. Just like there are much better solutions to dealing with contagious diseases and lack of access to education, there are also solutions to the problems caused by climate change.
The overpopulation and climate change alarmism narratives are similar, including the way they are religious. If we don't stop overpopulation, we're going to starve to death. If we don't pay carbon credits, we're all going to burn to death. If we don't pay for our sins, we'll burn in hell.
Religion and government bans don't produce solutions; science and technology do produce solutions.
