Overpopulation

[Cacotopia]

Is there a moral solution? I don't think there presently is one. But I think time's running out for us and fast. I was watching a TED talk, and the lady on there said with much dismay that the world population needs to drop by at least 75-80%. If we were to maintain our current levels of consumption and dumping crap into our environment.

And I have to say I agree. There are too many of us negatively impacting the environment simultaneously. When I see large families of 2+ I think they were arrogant to have so many children. Those kids need to be pushed hard to make ground breaking achievements and be consciously aware of their carbon footprint, if not you were selfish in self replacement value.

I try with growing my own food, not using plastic bags, recycling, and reusing, almost everything in my house is repurposed until it can't be. I use my motorcycle on average once or twice per week.

But when nature tries her darnedest to "cull the herd" out we fight back with medicine. As horrible it is to say I think we need to do what Mizaru; Kikazaru, and Iwazaru do for a few epidemics. Like I said there is no morally acceptable solution that I can tell.

The abundance of life makes life expendable, with every life lost 3 replace it and that number continues to rise with longer life expectancy. If it were a "war" for our survival I would say even a 50% loss of life would be acceptable. And I think a plague of sorts is the most "humane" which in the common definition it is not, but allow me to explain. Disease doesn't choose specifics. It doesn't target specific social classes, or race, or religion, or gays, or straight, or what ever gender people claim to be. It finds a host then it kills the host.

If humanity were to attempt to control our own population then we would be biased, I think the elitist sects of our society would deem themselves worthy of being saved. When it (my assumption) they who have most likely perpetrated the worst crimes against the environment.

The planet does not need saving, we need to be saved from ourselves. And in order to figure out a more efficient solution we need time. And less of us means more time to figure it out. Or figure out how to leave the planet and find somewhere else to muck it all up.

Anyways this is one of my unpopular opinions and I'll probably be crucified for it but I'm saying it anyways.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Overpopulation is largely not a matter of having too many babies. Most First World countries continue to have declining populations. The problem is more of a distribution issue.

We grow way more food than we need and most of it gets wasted because of our model of a supermarket every block with all of the perishable things on display at all times. Commercialization of food means that anything that doesn't look ideal but it's still quite edible gets thrown away. Our food waste is incredible.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Obviously the amount of Natural Resources we use as a first world nation greatly exceeds the amount of resources in third world countries. So even are lesser population is consuming more than is viable long-term.

Of course, the value that we place on education (which is not great at the moment) also factors in. For example, every smart phone uses an amount of rare earth metals that will eventually run out, and not in the too distant future either. It's possible that we could find an alternative, or make a synthetic product that works as an alternative, not at the rate science is being devalued in our country.

 

[Cacotopia]

Granted, more developed nations use more fuel. And the methods in which less developed nations Utilize those fossil fuels, or the methods they employ in waste disposal is even worse but not even close to despite I guess our higher standards in the the sheer quantity negative impact per se. I am not qualified to fully answer either. I know there are a whole lot of factors I did not mention that play a role. But I am talking about the planet as a whole. Since we all share the same planet and you cannot blame one group over another in the grand picture since we all are contributors to our own demise. Yes some more so than others. Regardless we are all part of the same problem.

 

[Politesse]

Overpopulation is more like sublimated aggression toward the poor than a real problem that could be scientifically quantified in a convincing fashion. While it is theoretically possible to have more resources than people, in real communities this almost never actually occurs, and when it does it is usually the result of a local natural disaster than too many people as such. Rather, the poor are poor because the wealthy hoard the resources that exist; a more even distribution of resources, especially on the global scale now possible, would instantly solve all existing "overpopulation" crises. That won't happen, but the reasons it won't happen are greed, cruelty, and mutual prejudices. Not the birth rate. The birth rate is a false flag; just the latest iteration of people trying to control others through supposedly universal rules of sexual morality, as has been the common obsession of empires and organized religions for centuries.

 

[Cacotopia]

I'm not talking about overpopulation in areas of the planet, I'm referring to the negative impact humanity perpetrate on the biosphere and in the future if no 'adjustments' are made might lead to a collapse in the ecosystem. That would result in a mass extinction event. Now I don't know if the biosphere would collapse. But it is not impossible since we have not experienced a full blown nuclear holocaust.

 

[Politesse]

I'm not talking about overpopulation in areas of the planet, I'm referring to the negative impact humanity perpetrate on the biosphere and in the future if no 'adjustments' are made might lead to a collapse in the ecosystem. That would result in a mass extinction event. Now I don't know if the biosphere would collapse. But it is not impossible since we have not experienced a full blown nuclear holocaust.

We are in the middle of a mass extinction event, and ecosystems falter and fall every single day. But number of humans is not the reason why.

If Bob and Sharon live in a house with Debra and Shannon, and Bob decides to knock down the house to sell it for the nails, they aren't homeless because there were too many of them. And they wouldn't be any less homeless if we killed or aborted Debra before she entered the household. They're homeless because Bob is a greedy idiot who didn't know better than to crap where he eats. Killing Bob would help, but no one ever suggests killing the Bobs of the world.

What resource crisis, exactly, are you claiming to be a universal human problem that could be solved by reduced population? As opposed to changed behaviors on the part of the greedy elites who arbitrarily waste or discard most of the resources thus produced?

 

[BSM1]

We could just simply kill off those that we feel are wasting space....just sayin'.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I'm not talking about overpopulation in areas of the planet, I'm referring to the negative impact humanity perpetrate on the biosphere and in the future if no 'adjustments' are made might lead to a collapse in the ecosystem. That would result in a mass extinction event. Now I don't know if the biosphere would collapse. But it is not impossible since we have not experienced a full blown nuclear holocaust.

We can only focus on regions of the planet because nobody is a global authority or could act in the interest of 'the planet as a whole.' And we needn't play world police anyway.

There are very real and significant changes we can make just by changing views and actions of the countries which pose the greatest consumption and distribution problems (which includes ecological damage due to that consumotion and distribution.)

No 'population culling' necessary.

 

[Politesse]

Basically, they have so little capital or real agency, that if you want to blame the poor for the ills of the world in a quantitative sounding way, your options are limited. Indeed, "there are more of them than there are of the wealthy" is pretty much the only thing you can pin on the poor. So it is used with reckless abandon, even though it makes no sense most of the time. The poor didn't decide to strip mine the mountain or clear cut the forest or dump poisons into the river. But by golly are there a lot of them. Clearly it must be their fault, for being so darn numerous.

 

[Cacotopia]

We can only focus on regions of the planet because nobody is a global authority or could act in the interest of 'the planet as a whole.' And we needn't play world police anyway.

There are very real and significant changes we can make just by changing views and actions of the countries which pose the greatest consumption and distribution problems (which includes ecological damage due to that consumotion and distribution.)

No 'population culling' necessary.

I would not trust a human authority figure or group of authorities to enact a "culling" humans are woefully flawed and subject to corruption too easily. We are all biased and in our immediate circles all life is precious. But with a certain amount of responsibility I think those in a position of power must in turn forsake their own humanity to make decisions that would indeed affect 100's of millions of lives. You cannot think of the few when it comes to the needs of the many.

This is a fatal flaw in what I would deem all political and governmental systems. Our own diversity and self interest will be our downfall. No political leader ever panders to the whole population of their country, there will always be their people, and not the whole populace.

Humanity's propagation across the globe has caused irreparable damage to natural habitats in every terrain type possible. I don't think the scope in which you are looking through is wide enough.

 

[Cacotopia]

Basically, they have so little capital or real agency, that if you want to blame the poor for the ills of the world in a quantitative sounding way, your options are limited. Indeed, "there are more of them than there are of the wealthy" is pretty much the only thing you can pin on the poor. So it is used with reckless abandon, even though it makes no sense most of the time. The poor didn't decide to strip mine the mountain or clear cut the forest or dump poisons into the river. But by golly are there a lot of them. Clearly it must be their fault, for being so darn numerous.

Where did I say we need to kill all of the poor people?

Please don't put words in my mouth.

 

[Politesse]

I would not trust a human authority figure or group of authorities to enact a "culling" humans are woefully flawed and subject to corruption too easily. We are all biased and in our immediate circles all life is precious. But with a certain amount of responsibility I think those in a position of power must in turn forsake their own humanity to make decisions that would indeed affect 100's of millions of lives. You cannot think of the few when it comes to the needs of the many.

This is a fatal flaw in what I would deem all political and governmental systems. Our own diversity and self interest will be our downfall. No political leader ever panders to the whole population of their country, there will always be their people, and not the whole populace.

Humanity's propagation across the globe has caused irreparable damage to natural habitats in every terrain type possible. I don't think the scope in which you are looking through is wide enough.

Give me a single historical example of a case where a massive population loss resulted in the healthy recovery of an ecosystem. There are plenty of mass murder incidents to choose from. Cambodia. Poland. Hiroshima. Northern California. Which of those natural environments is looking perky and healthy now that a bunch of humans died on top of them?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I would not trust a human authority figure or group of authorities to enact a "culling" humans are woefully flawed and subject to corruption too easily. We are all biased and in our immediate circles all life is precious. But with a certain amount of responsibility I think those in a position of power must in turn forsake their own humanity to make decisions that would indeed affect 100's of millions of lives. You cannot think of the few when it comes to the needs of the many.

This is a fatal flaw in what I would deem all political and governmental systems. Our own diversity and self interest will be our downfall. No political leader ever panders to the whole population of their country, there will always be their people, and not the whole populace.

Humanity's propagation across the globe has caused irreparable damage to natural habitats in every terrain type possible. I don't think the scope in which you are looking through is wide enough.

This is how we get Thanos.

 

[Politesse]

Where did I say we need to kill all of the poor people?

Please don't put words in my mouth.

That is always who gets killed. The wealthy do not die in the wars they start or lose children to the social programs they start.

 

[Cacotopia]

I said there was no morally sufficient solution, and in a possible scenario would be a plague left unchecked. Of course more poor than wealthy will die. There are more of them. But a natural disease doesn't target poor people it targets hosts, and hosts can come from any background.

That's like saying a majority of shark attacks happen close to the beach, no fecal matter Sherlock, that's where the people are.

 

[Kenny]

Overpopulation is more like sublimated aggression toward the poor than a real problem that could be scientifically quantified in a convincing fashion. While it is theoretically possible to have more resources than people, in real communities this almost never actually occurs, and when it does it is usually the result of a local natural disaster than too many people as such. Rather, the poor are poor because the wealthy hoard the resources that exist; a more even distribution of resources, especially on the global scale now possible, would instantly solve all existing "overpopulation" crises. That won't happen, but the reasons it won't happen are greed, cruelty, and mutual prejudices. Not the birth rate. The birth rate is a false flag; just the latest iteration of people trying to control others through supposedly universal rules of sexual morality, as has been the common obsession of empires and organized religions for centuries.

WoW! This is a great statement! Well done!

 

[Kenny]

Give me a single historical example of a case where a massive population loss resulted in the healthy recovery of an ecosystem. There are plenty of mass murder incidents to choose from. Cambodia. Poland. Hiroshima. Northern California. Which of those natural environments is looking perky and healthy now that a bunch of humans died on top of them?

That makes TWO great statements... well done!

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I said there was no morally sufficient solution, and in a possible scenario would be a plague left unchecked. Of course more poor than wealthy will die. There are more of them. But a natural disease doesn't target poor people it targets hosts, and hosts can come from any background.

That's like saying a majority of shark attacks happen close to the beach, no fecal matter Sherlock, that's where the people are.

It's not just that more poor will die, more poor will die by ratios. Because the rich have at their disposal more means of preventing communicable disease and treating them even without the involvement of Public Health Care.
The idea that a plague involves a fairly evenly distributednumber of wealthy and poor is not reflected by history.

 

[Cacotopia]

Give me a single historical example of a case where a massive population loss resulted in the healthy recovery of an ecosystem. There are plenty of mass murder incidents to choose from. Cambodia. Poland. Hiroshima. Northern California. Which of those natural environments is looking perky and healthy now that a bunch of humans died on top of them?

You are completely ignoring climate change and our impact on said environment. We can't know what the status of the earth world have been like today if we were not here, since we could not observe it. So your statement is intellectually dishonest excluding that information. If there is say 1 car for every American citizen, and half of them die. do you think that will positively affect the environment? Not to mention the 1000's of tons of waste they wouldn't produce.

I certainly do, but you couldn't see the difference in your lifetime.

 

[Cacotopia]

It's not just that more poor will die, more poor will die by ratios. Because the rich have at their disposal more means of preventing communicable disease and treating them even without the involvement of Public Health Care.
The idea that a plague involves a fairly evenly distributednumber of wealthy and poor is not reflected by history.

Oh man how can I say the same thing different ways.

plague out break occurs. Public health system does not intervene zero health care private or public is provided.