Hmmm. I'm not sure how you can cast this as a chicken / egg problem?What comes first, the chicken or the egg.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Hmmm. I'm not sure how you can cast this as a chicken / egg problem?What comes first, the chicken or the egg.
Well, of course .. there are limits to growth.At some point we're going to run short of the natural resources fueling this growth of population and standard-of-living; or environmental collapse will initiate a new dark age.
You say that it is overpopulation that is the problem.Hmmm. I'm not sure how you can cast this as a chicken / egg problem?
I'm hoping we can avoid nature's solutions, they tend to be quite brutal.Well, of course .. there are limits to growth.
Nature has its own way of dealing with that.
You say that it is overpopulation that is the problem.
I say that it is industrialization, and the global economic system that it caused.
Sometimes.... but occasionally we get a mass extinction when nature cannot adapt fast enough.Well, of course .. there are limits to growth.
Nature has its own way of dealing with that.
It's all in the mind, you knowEarth has such an infection, breeding beyond its carrying capacity.
Sometimes.... but occasionally we get a mass extinction when nature cannot adapt fast enough.Well, of course .. there are limits to growth.
Nature has its own way of dealing with that.
Extractive industry and a profligate economic system are, indeed, problems. But they exist to feed a wasteful and acquisitive population.You [Icehouse] say that it is overpopulation that is the problem.
I say that it is industrialization, and the global economic system that it caused.
Just look at the evidence.It's all in the mind, you know
I'm referring to this:I do not "dodge". If you think I've missed a point, I won't take offense if you reiterate it.
Is this something that's supposed to follow from what I said that you're specifically responding to? If so, then I don't see how.Science has allowed us to delay the inevitable, no doubt.
Sure - so what?But there will be a point at which there are hard limits to what science can achieve.
This seems like quite a loaded question.And why? Why, why, why do humans need to continue to grow their populations?
So do I.I want to live on a planet where we appreciate nature.
Do you also want to think of those farm animals (that you reference further down) as having a life that's as valuable as an eagle's life?Where we think that an eagle's life is as valuable as ours.
Species extinction due to population can be a two-way street between humans and any non-human animals, and between any non-human animals. Extinction can also be due to natural effects not involving any species different from the one being affected. Species extinction has been happening long before humans showed up on the scene; one example is dinosaurs, which involves many species of animals.The more we populate, the more other species go extinct.
I happen to have quite a bit of knowledge of honeybees. Along with some friends, we tried our hands at beekeeping, but didn't succeed because we relied on an environment where apparently the main resource was raspberry plants for a very brief amount of time. The hives did very well during that few weeks, but then they had to swarm probably because they got very large and needed to go where there were better resources. In another attempt, they were annihilated by small hive beetles.And even if you don't care about other species, they are CRUCIAL to our survival. For example, if we make bees extinct, humans will follow shortly thereafter. And we DO NOT KNOW the complete ecosystem that bees need to survive.
We don't need to find sources of freshwater for all 8 billion people; many billions of people already have existing sources of freshwater. The idea of implementing something like reverse osmosis would be a matter of supply and demand, just like honeybees, and is a problem or challenge that the free market is capable of working on to find solutions.The math is very, very poor for this sort of solution. Yes, osmosis works. But it takes equipment, and mining, and so on to produce, and it's many, many orders of magnitude too small to handle the needs of 8 billion people.
How many gallons of water does a human being take?Consider that it takes over 2000 gallons of fresh water to make a pound of beef. Chicken is a little better, only 500 gallons. Vegetables are better but it still requires many gallons of fresh water to produce a pound of veggies.
Yessir!This is a good topic for a separate thread!
Actually how much do you need??If all the land and resources are being used for human needs, how is biodiversity going to be protected?
The question is how much we're using, vs how much nature needs.Actually how much do you need??
Just asking for some clarification - are you trying to put words in my mouth with this "(ie: unregulated)" part, or are you just setting up a strawman to attack?The free (ie: unregulated) market is one of the major causes of the problem.
It has little interest in finding solutions. There's no profit in it. They are more motivated by increasing production and the next quarter's market returns.
Do you think government is purely altruistic? If so, then I've got a bridge to sell you.Only government has the power to monitor and regulate this.
Government has a long history if trust-busting, market and environmental regulation. It's been since the Neoliberal revolution/Reaganomics that government has been captured by the Banks and corporations, and protective regulations rolled back.
It's interesting that even though I didn't explain any details about what reverse osmosis entails you somehow know that it produces waste brine, yet either you somehow do not seem to know what's done with it.And what's to be done with the waste brine?
I think the purpose of such ideas is that they're feasible in places where conventional agriculture isn't feasible. Do you want to throw the baby out with the bathwater?These are good ideas, but are they feasible everywhere?
The profit motive.What' going to motivate corporations to spend the capital to fund such large multinational projects?
I think the issue you bring up here is tragedy of the commons; is it your contention that this directly relates to overpopulation in some significant way?It's like pulling teeth just to get them to install scrubbers on the stacks of their existing coal plants.
Yes it does, yet there are those out there who still advocate it, and there are nations today that have at least some degree of socialism, even the US at state and federal levels.But who's advocating that? It had a pretty poor record in the USSR and Red China.
Free trade is simply letting someone set their own prices for the goods and services they offer, and letting customers decide whether or not they want someone else's goods or services; it's about keeping competition unrestricted.Government, as regulator of consumer and environmental protection, a bulwark against monopoly, &c, is what corporatists and captive government opportunists have been attempting to "drown in the bathtub" for the past 40 years.
"Free trade" = freedom from regulation, and a return to the exploitative, wild West economy that preceeded the Great Depression and subsequent rise of Authoritarianism.
Socialism can work well in the short run, but not in the long run. During the post war years, it simply worked well in the US because it practically had a monopoly on the overall market of countries affected by the destruction of WW2, where there was a big demand from the US for its goods & services. Perhaps it was the same sort of deal with western Europe.It scaled up pretty well in the US and western Europe during the post war years -- at least until Reagan and Thatcher's anti-government deregulation began
undermining the prosperity, security and opportunity of the 99%, and the money began 'trickling up' to the one-percenters.
It takes a lot of topsoil to grow food for the animals we eat AND for the food we eat directly. Most of the land on the planet is not fertile enough to grow crops.Actually how much do you need??
If the planet could not sustain us, we would not be here!It takes a lot of topsoil to grow food for the animals we eat AND for the food we eat directly. Most of the land on the planet is not fertile enough to grow crops.
..through industrial farming, yes.So humans are over-using the fertile land the planet has, and literally wearing it out. Overusing it..
..or industrial estatesAnd so now we're cutting down rain forests in an attempt to create more farmland..
..but why are we doing that?..cutting down rain forests is a horrible idea from most any angle you can think of..
Yes, the resources of planet earth are finite .. as are we .. we live .. we die.The planet has a limited carrying capacity that's independent of whatever economic systems humans create, correct?
If the planet could not sustain us, we would not be here!
..through industrial farming, yes.
However, we do not need industrial farming to survive, despite your assumptions to the contrary.
I haven't a clue .. but there are many, many more factors to our survival than that statistic.The planet can sustain some people, but not an infinite number of people. What do you think the maximum number of people is?
This life is finite. There are many "limits to growth".We have 8 billion now. Could the planet sustain 20 billion? How about 100 billion? A trillion?
No .. it is up to the individual to decide where they want to be.But let me ask you this, do think we should abandon our cities?
It is a good idea to think about it .. but like climate-change, we cannot predict with any certainty..as long as most people live in cities, we will need large farms outside of the cities to feed them. And the food will need to be transported and so on..
Well, it's about infrastructure .. what goes up, must come down...So it seems to me if we have cities, we need some level on industrialization, problematic as it is.
What exactly do you mean by limited carrying capacity? Who decided what that limit is and why? What is that limit - give me a number or something, and how exactly it was determined.@anotherneil -
I'm not sure I'm following why you're talking about various economic systems in this thread?
The planet has a limited carrying capacity that's independent of whatever economic systems humans create, correct?