Why Is No One Speaking About Overpopulation?

[LuisDantas]

And you're not helping by excusing an exploding population.
You overlook the fact that our lifestyle can remain the same
while being made far greener. But the fewer the people, the
less the deleterious effect on our environment.

To a point.

There is also a urgent need to actually make the situation sustainable. To stop relying on fossil fuels, for one. And to address with some semblance of seriousness the social and economic disparities that feed the greed and the aggressiveness towards the environment.

 

[LuisDantas]

I'd suggest that Human life on Earth is not sustainable. At some point, we will run out of the things it takes. Will Jesus return to save us, or will we begin to colonize off planet? It is anyone's guess.

I would not expect or even hope for either, personally.

We will either die off for good relatively soon and taking a lot of innocent species with us, or learn better and aim for a far smaller population with far wiser habits.

 

[LuisDantas]

Someone mentioned that war is an effective population reducer but I do not think that is so. I'm not going to do the math right now.

War is an effective population reducer, no doubt.

It just happens to be cruel and obscene as well.

 

[LuisDantas]

Too many people are too selfish. They’d yell, “I’ve got my rights!”

Precisely.

That is a pet peeve of mine, and one reason why I do not really care for the overestimation of the rule of law.

Far too much effort is put into producing legal texts that proclaim "legal rights".

Some of those are admirable, but ultimately they all amount to, at their very best, statements of laudable goals.

Actual rights can only exist by virtue of enough people in adequate positions being convinced to grant them. "Rights" are in fact a misleading name. "Grant" or even "privilege" would be better words.

 

[Shaul]

Current population growth is not because of birth rate. The current world birth rate is less than 2.5 and falling. It will soon be at the replacement rate of just above 2.1 (possibly less). It is widely mistakenly thought that current population growth is due to large birth rates, it is not. Current growth is due to longer lifespans. Once babies currently reach life expectancies the world population numbers will stabilize or even drift down.

Yes, the world can support the coming estimated stable population of 10-11 billion people. No, it will not be some global catastrophe. No, it won’t mean environmental doomsday. It will be a paradigm shift which will usher in a new golden age for all of mankind.

The Malthusians got it wrong.

 

[Revoltingest]

To a point.

There is also a urgent need to actually make the situation sustainable. To stop relying on fossil fuels, for one. And to address with some semblance of seriousness the social and economic disparities that feed the greed and the aggressiveness towards the environment.

I'm OK with greed....but it should be fair & green greed.

Btw, our thermostats in the house are set to 58F.
This keeps the propane usage down.
To occasionally get a higher temp, I burn salvaged wood in my
ultra-efficient clean burning Pacific Energy wood stove.
Tis a wonder Mrs Revolt tolerates my antics.

 

[LuisDantas]

Current population growth is not because of birth rate. The current world birth rate is less than 2.5 and falling. It will soon be at the replacement rate of just above 2.1 (possibly less). It is widely mistakenly thought that current population growth is due to large birth rates, it is not. Current growth is due to longer lifespans. Once babies currently reach life expectancies the world population numbers will stabilize or even drift down.

Some decades ago that would have been fine.

Nowadays, it just is not. We are about five times or worse on the advisable population levels.

Yes, the world can support the coming estimated stable population of 10-11 billion people. No, it will not be some global catastrophe. No, it won’t mean environmental doomsday. It will be a paradigm shift which will usher in a new golden age for all of mankind.

The Malthusians got it wrong.

And it is so because you say so, just like that?

 

[Shaul]

Some decades ago that would have been fine.

Nowadays, it just is not. We are about five times or worse on the advisable population levels.



And it is so because you say so, just like that?

“Advisable”? Says who?

The doomsayers have gotten it wrong time and time again. They are wrong now. The fact is that life has been improving for the average person and it will continue to do so. More importantly the rate of improvement will continue to accelerate.

 

[LuisDantas]

“Advisable”? Says who?

The doomsayers have gotten it wrong time and time again. They are wrong now. The fact is that life has been improving for the average person and it will continue to do so. More importantly the rate of improvement will continue to accelerate.

That is just wishful thinking running amok.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

We have disagreed on this before. Apparently I just can't follow your logic.

How or why do you conclude that overpopulation is not a problem?

Are you implying that it is somehow easier or better to hope for or attempt to educate literal billions of people into more sustainable habits, when even you emphasize that very few people even want to talk about that?

I didn't say it wasn't a problem, it's just that it's not developing nations that are driving the destruction of the planet. People in rich countries don't want to acknowledge their role in it.

 

[Revoltingest]

I didn't say it wasn't a problem, it's just that it's not developing nations that are driving the destruction of the planet. People in rich countries don't want to acknowledge their role in it.

Developing nations are the emerging problem, as
they too will have a more consumptive lifestyle.
Just look at China, a major polluter of the world now.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Developing nations are the emerging problem, as
they too will have a more consumptive lifestyle.
Just look at China, a major polluter of the world now.

Yes, they are following our example.

 

[LuisDantas]

I didn't say it wasn't a problem, it's just that it's not developing nations that are driving the destruction of the planet.

Not to the same scale, perhaps. But in general they are hardly bastions of sustainable development either.

People in rich countries don't want to acknowledge their role in it.

That much is certainly true.

 

[Vinayaka]

Current population growth is not because of birth rate. The current world birth rate is less than 2.5 and falling. It will soon be at the replacement rate of just above 2.1 (possibly less). It is widely mistakenly thought that current population growth is due to large birth rates, it is not. Current growth is due to longer lifespans. Once babies currently reach life expectancies the world population numbers will stabilize or even drift down.

Yes, the world can support the coming estimated stable population of 10-11 billion people. No, it will not be some global catastrophe. No, it won’t mean environmental doomsday. It will be a paradigm shift which will usher in a new golden age for all of mankind.

The Malthusians got it wrong.

I took some course many years ago where the professor illustrated how this planet could support far more people. Most of his stuff had to do with how we use land. We build cities on prime agricultural land, we put golf courses there, and all that. Basically, our land use is ridiculously inefficient. Poverty is because of wealth distribution, which results in poor food distribution. So I join you in the lack of pessimism.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, they are following our example.

I don't think they follow because they emulate us.
Instead, it's because they become able.
I say....
- Reduce population.
- Go greener.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I don't think they follow because they emulate us.
Instead, it's because they become able.
I say....
- Reduce population.
- Go greener.

The American lifestyle has been promoted around the globe through pop culture.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Not to the same scale, perhaps. But in general they are hardly bastions of sustainable development either.


That much is certainly true.

No one said they were.

 

[Shaul]

That is just wishful thinking running amok.

Again you present no facts, just unfounded assertion.

Here are facts. Life expectancy, increasing. Poverty, decreasing and standards of living increasing. Even poorer people have conveniences such as cell phones. Literacy, up.

Contrast today with a hundred years ago. Things have dramatically changed for the better. One hundred years from now things will be even better.

 

[Revoltingest]

The American lifestyle has been promoted around the globe through pop culture.

I can agree with that, given that you use the passive voice, which
indicates that it happened rather than saying anyone actually did it.
But history shows that lavish lifestyles arise whenever & wherever
people have the means to live thus, eg, ancient Rome. It's about
human nature, not Americastanian ability or advocacy.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

which
indicates that it happened rather than saying anyone actually did it.

I don't know what you mean here. Obviously the media is run by people. It's corporations trying to sell you stuff.