Overpopulation

[Saint Frankenstein]

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.

Why do people who make this misanthropic and alarmist argument never kill themselves for the good of the planet? Not saying they should, but it seems hypocritical that they always blame someone else or want someone else to die or give up their rights.

 

[BSM1]

Haven't we already been pursuing this option for millennia?
Post plague Europe, 1500s Americas, Chernobyl exclusion zone.

Evidently with not enough gusto...

 

[Valjean]

The People's Republic of China attempted exactly that. Did it work? Is the ecosystem of the Chinese countryside looking perky and happy and healthy?

It worked great.
No, it didn't result in negative population growth, it just slowed the rate of growth. Had the policy not been in place China would be a lot worse off politically and economically than it is today.
Yes, the Chinese countryside is healthier than it was pre Mao, not because of a lower total population, but because of massive migrations to the cities -- which are toxic messes.

 

[Valjean]

Why do people who make this misanthropic and alarmist argument never kill themselves for the good of the planet? Not saying they should, but it seems hypocritical that they always blame someone else or want someone else to die or give up their rights.

Seriously?
We put the blame where it lies, but we respect life. Personally I try to limit my carbon and plastic footprint.
Alarmist? How are you defining this. Do you not see a problem?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Seriously?
We put the blame where it lies, but we respect life. Personally I try to limit my carbon and plastic footprint.
Alarmist? How are you defining this. Do you not see a problem?

Yes, seriously. If you think humans are destroying the biosphere and are saying that we should allow diseases to run unchecked to "cull the herd", then it stands to reason that you should off yourself as a display or your convictions and to set a good example. For the good of the planet, after all. Otherwise you're just a callous hypocrite with sick fantasies of genocide.

 

[Valjean]

I

Yes, seriously. If you think humans are destroying the biosphere and are saying that we should allow diseases to run unchecked to "cull the herd", then it stands to reason that you should off yourself as a display or your convictions and to set a good example. For the good of the planet, after all. Otherwise you're just a callous hypocrite with sick fantasies of genocide.

I never said anything about culls or genocide. In what way am I a sick, callous hypocrite?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I

I never said anything about culls or genocide. In what way am I a sick, callous hypocrite?

I was replying to the OP, not you.

 

[Valjean]

Ah, OK.

 

[Cacotopia]

Oh pish posh, If you have lived your whole life and not had one horrible thought run through your supposedly pious skull then I might call you not human. People are somehow horrible for entertaining "godly" thoughts. Isn't that what your god already did once? But eh, you don't seem to have a problem with it at all.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Oh pish posh, If you have lived your whole life and not had one horrible thought run through your supposedly pious skull then I might call you not human. People are somehow horrible for entertaining "godly" thoughts. Isn't that what your god already did once? But eh, you don't seem to have a problem with it at all.

Are you replying to me? You called for mass deaths. I was just wondering why people with your thinking don't set an example.

 

[Cacotopia]

committing suicide isn't an example, nor does it actually help, like using an eye dropper to put out an inferno.

Whether or not you think it's true, was god's flood justified? God did it for far more petty reasons, but was it justified? I'm not justifying this I know it's bad. But we also cull the dear, wolf, and bear populations, wouldn't want them cramping our convenient lifestyle. Yet I doubt you ever made a peep about us killing them, human life is more precious. I think all life is precious but we like the cane toads in Australia are out of control.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

committing suicide isn't an example, nor does it actually help, like using an eye dropper to put out an inferno.

How doesn't it help? One less human pest destroying Gaia.

 

[illykitty]

I do think overpopulation is a problem, unless people are willing to sacrifice comfort, which is very unlikely. Most people in the world dream of having "Western" lifestyles but you don't hear too many people wanting an African lifestyle. I think technology can help, but there's still a limit (whatever that is) so I don't see it as a good idea to reproduce and take future generations' resources, because that's what's happening right now. We're taking more than can be replenished, meaning future generations will have less. It's a mess we've put ourselves in and it can't be ignored.

However I think the best solutions are education, lifting people out of poverty, free birth control and such. Maybe even reward people with less children, show the benefits of having less and so on? Over time it should decline. I don't advocate any sort of harmful or tyrannical policies. Use a carrot, not a stick.

There's nothing that can be done about people that already exist, but we can help steer things in the right direction for the future. I'm personally not having children, but overpopulation is only a small part of the reason why I chose that. If I ever change my mind, I would rather adopt.

 

[Cacotopia]

I do think overpopulation is a problem, unless people are willing to sacrifice comfort, which is very unlikely. Most people in the world dream of having "Western" lifestyles but you don't hear too many people wanting an African lifestyle. I think technology can help, but there's still a limit (whatever that is) so I don't see it as a good idea to reproduce and take future generations' resources, because that's what's happening right now. We're taking more than can be replenished, meaning future generations will have less. It's a mess we've put ourselves in and it can't be ignored.

However I think the best solutions are education, lifting people out of poverty, free birth control and such. Maybe even reward people with less children, show the benefits of having less and so on? Over time it should decline. I don't advocate any sort of harmful or tyrannical policies. Use a carrot, not a stick.

There's nothing that can be done about people that already exist, but we can help steer things in the right direction for the future. I'm personally not having children, but overpopulation is only a small part of the reason why I chose that. If I ever change my mind, I would rather adopt.

That's the thing, I don't think there is time. I have a buddy of mine from Oz that's a marine biologist, he says the ocean is pretty much screwed. And in a decline that he personally does not think can be reversed, even if all fishing were to cease today. now that's all hearsay as it's just his word on the topic, which was 3 years ago when he was last over in my neck of the woods. But reefs globally have declined about 30% in the last 50 years. The great barrier reef is dying in some sections. The Ocean's fish population is on the brink of collapse from over fishing.

Yes my initial thought was poor. But in that line of thought, the less intake the longer we would have, and the reasoning for such a horrible thought was we don't have A the time to turn things around and B I have no faith in humanity to actually do it. I think we are on a train headed into a wall and we are only making the train go faster.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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.

It's easy. Stop trying to force people to be healthy and well, make them masters of their own fate.

Make cigarettes cheap again, bring fats back into foods and have them taste good again like they used to, Repeal helmet and seat belt laws were they apply, free up big gulps from regulation. Stuff like that. Like in the old days when people actually had more fun and freedom to do what they choose with less regulatory intrusion which exists for no other purpose then designed to be for their own good, like some dystopian born Supernanny with a "hero" complex.

 

[Valjean]

We're extracting "resources" faster than they're being produced. Not sustainable.

We're polluting the air and water. We're depleting topsoil and groundwater. We're altering the climate. We're altering oceanic temperature, circulation, salinity and pH. Save jellyfish and toxic algae, the oceans are dying. On land, forests are dying, essential species are going extinct. We're causing a mass extinction.

'We're doomed': Mayer Hillman on the climate reality no one else will dare mention
Drastic cooling in North Atlantic beyond worst fears, scientists warn
Oceans under greatest threat in history, warns Sir David Attenborough
From 'Sea to Shining Sea,' Industrial Ag Fouls America's Waterways
The World’s Leading Driver of Climate Change: Animal Agriculture
Plastic fibres found in tap water around the world, study reveals
Mass starvation is humanity’s fate if we keep flogging the land to death | George Monbiot
Humanity driving 'unprecedented' marine extinction
When Will the Planet Be Too Hot for Humans? Much, Much Sooner Than You Imagine.

 

[WalterTrull]

We're extracting "resources" faster than they're being produced. Not sustainable.

We're polluting the air and water. We're depleting topsoil and groundwater. We're altering the climate. We're altering oceanic temperature, circulation, salinity and pH. Save jellyfish and toxic algae, the oceans are dying. On land, forests are dying, essential species are going extinct. We're causing a mass extinction.

'We're doomed': Mayer Hillman on the climate reality no one else will dare mention
Drastic cooling in North Atlantic beyond worst fears, scientists warn
Oceans under greatest threat in history, warns Sir David Attenborough
From 'Sea to Shining Sea,' Industrial Ag Fouls America's Waterways
The World’s Leading Driver of Climate Change: Animal Agriculture
Plastic fibres found in tap water around the world, study reveals
Mass starvation is humanity’s fate if we keep flogging the land to death | George Monbiot
Humanity driving 'unprecedented' marine extinction
When Will the Planet Be Too Hot for Humans? Much, Much Sooner Than You Imagine.

Half empty guy, huh.

 

[Valjean]

Half empty guy, huh.

LOL -- Half full but heading South fast.

 

[idea]

It is a bit strange...

Last time I went on a road trip, there was still plenty of wide open spaces though.

 

[columbus]

There's no moral way to shrink the population by killing people who are already here.

The answer is to shrink the birth rate.
Radically.

I am not being facetious when I say that the answer is homosex.
People want, and will have, sex!
But gay sex doesn't come with the immorality of creating children that the human race doesn't need and can't afford.

GAY ATHEISTS FOR LIFE!

Tom