Over population

[frosty]

I think science and research will truly progress when we learn to completely detach religion, politics, profit and opinion from the scientific process and method. Those factors have proved to be poisonous to humanity many times in the past in many various ways.

[gomtuu77]

I think the problem has been misidentified. The basic tension has to do with the number of people vs. the amount or level of resources both renewable and non-renewable necessary to sustain that number of people. In that context, if the number of people is identified as the problem, then you essentially invite society to begin looking at human life as something akin to a bug infestation. Fostering this view of human life is likely to be unhelpful at the very least. However, if you identify the problem as a lack of both renewable and non-renewable resources, then you invite innovative solutions that likely include conservation, new technology, space exploration, etc... One is clearly superior to the other.

[Hydra009]

I think the problem has been misidentified. The basic tension has to do with the number of people vs. the amount or level of resources both renewable and non-renewable necessary to sustain that number of people. In that context, if the number of people is identified as the problem, then you essentially invite society to begin looking at human life as something akin to a bug infestation. Fostering this view of human life is likely to be unhelpful at the very least.

You've described carrying capacity.  And in pretty bizarre terms, no less.  But like it or not, it's a simple fact that a planet can only support a certain amount of humans, just as a terrarium can only support a certain amount of beetles.

However, if you identify the problem as a lack of both renewable and non-renewable resources

And the reason for that lack?  Or is that "unhelpful"?

then you invite innovative solutions that likely include conservation, new technology, space exploration, etc... One is clearly superior to the other.

None of which are nearly as practical as simply having less kids.

And obviously, neither more efficient use of land nor access to additional land solves the underlying problem.

[LikelyToBreak]

Colanth, I agree with you.  A drone missile costs 4.5 million dollars.  A million dollar science grant just might make the missile obsolete.  But, you have have consider short term profits over the long term welfare of the human race.  Where are your priorities?  #-o  

frosty, I agree with you.  But, it ain't going to happen in our lifetimes.  :(

gomtuu77 wrote:

I think the problem has been misidentified. The basic tension has to do with the number of people vs. the amount or level of resources both renewable and non-renewable necessary to sustain that number of people. In that context, if the number of people is identified as the problem, then you essentially invite society to begin looking at human life as something akin to a bug infestation. Fostering this view of human life is likely to be unhelpful at the very least. However, if you identify the problem as a lack of both renewable and non-renewable resources, then you invite innovative solutions that likely include conservation, new technology, space exploration, etc... One is clearly superior to the other.

I never looked at the problem this way before.  Seriously.  I just always saw the rich and powerful treating the poor as a bug infestation all along.  In fact, those with a little more always seem to look down on the poorer.  I wonder if we could change the attitudes of those in charge to see it this way?  I suppose it is possible.

How would we do this?  Seriously.  What could we as a society do, to change the way the richer look at the poorer?  Revolution don't seem to have any long term solution to this, as those replacing those in power, just seem to treat people worse than their predecessor.  

Any ideas?  Anybody?   :-k

[frosty]

Colanth, I agree with you.  A drone missile costs 4.5 million dollars.  A million dollar science grant just might make the missile obsolete.  But, you have have consider short term profits over the long term welfare of the human race.  Where are your priorities?  #-o  

frosty, I agree with you.  But, it ain't going to happen in our lifetimes.  :(

gomtuu77 wrote:

I think the problem has been misidentified. The basic tension has to do with the number of people vs. the amount or level of resources both renewable and non-renewable necessary to sustain that number of people. In that context, if the number of people is identified as the problem, then you essentially invite society to begin looking at human life as something akin to a bug infestation. Fostering this view of human life is likely to be unhelpful at the very least. However, if you identify the problem as a lack of both renewable and non-renewable resources, then you invite innovative solutions that likely include conservation, new technology, space exploration, etc... One is clearly superior to the other.

I never looked at the problem this way before.  Seriously.  I just always saw the rich and powerful treating the poor as a bug infestation all along.  In fact, those with a little more always seem to look down on the poorer.  I wonder if we could change the attitudes of those in charge to see it this way?  I suppose it is possible.

How would we do this?  Seriously.  What could we as a society do, to change the way the richer look at the poorer?  Revolution don't seem to have any long term solution to this, as those replacing those in power, just seem to treat people worse than their predecessor.  

Any ideas?  Anybody?   :-k

I don't want to be yet another person on the Internet that thinks that just because they can access the web they know the answers to everything. I don't. I'm young, still quite young on the grand scale, and I don't want to have kids for personal reasons at this time. But another user pointed out that not having kids is a practical choice to make in this whole "issue". But like I said, I don't want to have kids now or possibly ever not because of overpopulation but for my own reasons. Yes, western fertility rates are technically dropping, but they are being replaced and possibly exceeded by immigrants who come in and even it out. Also from what I've seen, young people, contrary to stereotypes and popular perception, are also having their own fair share of kids. Some in my opinion are having them a little too young, and having a little too many but that's a conversation for another time.

Revolutions tend to, as some examples throughout history will acknowledge, work in a cycle. A regime is overthrown for whatever reason, and the new regime that takes power in place of them forget or ignore the tenets of their revolution and repeat the same dirty tricks the previous regimes practiced. A wash, rinse, repeat cycle of "revolutions" do not seem to be solving anything, I think the only long term solution to such problems such as overpopulation is to get more people educated and aware of how their practices affect the world and other people. You also need to promote safe sex practices, inject the idea of having less or no kids into the public mind, and start some type of global discussion about this that will make people have some type of consciousness about the issue at hand.

I don't want to judge here, but if a perceived majority of the world population can use the world for their own selfish needs, I don't see why they cannot simply reverse course and take part in a more healthy way of living on this planet. It sounds very idealistic, and it might not ever happen, but I do believe that there will come time in the future where humans must begin a new path of sustainability. There are already some movements that promote and practice these ideals, but they are in their infant stages.

[Plu]

I think the problem has been misidentified. The basic tension has to do with the number of people vs. the amount or level of resources both renewable and non-renewable necessary to sustain that number of people. In that context, if the number of people is identified as the problem, then you essentially invite society to begin looking at human life as something akin to a bug infestation. Fostering this view of human life is likely to be unhelpful at the very least. However, if you identify the problem as a lack of both renewable and non-renewable resources, then you invite innovative solutions that likely include conservation, new technology, space exploration, etc... One is clearly superior to the other.

We could create an innovation that increased food production thousandfold and people would still be starving to death all around the globe. There is already enough food to go around. It's just not economical to supply it to the starving.

[PopeyesPappy]

Innovations to increase food production aren't required right now. If estimates on population growth are accurate they never will be. We could easily increase production enough to support the predicted peak population by simply bringing productivity in developing areas up to that of developed ones. We have the technology to do that now. No miracles required. We don't even need to increase the total area currently under cultivation to feed the 9 billion peak population. All we have to do is increase productivity of what is used today, and stop wasting half of it. But as has been said before in this thread there is no profit in feeding the poor. People will continue to starve as long as profit is the main motivating factor for the production and distribution of food resources.

[Colanth]

I think the problem has been misidentified. The basic tension has to do with the number of people vs. the amount or level of resources both renewable and non-renewable necessary to sustain that number of people. In that context, if the number of people is identified as the problem, then you essentially invite society to begin looking at human life as something akin to a bug infestation. Fostering this view of human life is likely to be unhelpful at the very least. However, if you identify the problem as a lack of both renewable and non-renewable resources, then you invite innovative solutions that likely include conservation, new technology, space exploration, etc... One is clearly superior to the other.

It's simple to control population (although the problem isn't how many people but where they are).  It's a lot more difficult (if it's possible) to create more resources.  So of course you prefer the more difficult, costlier process.  Logic dictates that we change demographics.

[DunkleSeele]

I think the problem has been misidentified. The basic tension has to do with the number of people vs. the amount or level of resources both renewable and non-renewable necessary to sustain that number of people. In that context, if the number of people is identified as the problem, then you essentially invite society to begin looking at human life as something akin to a bug infestation. Fostering this view of human life is likely to be unhelpful at the very least. However, if you identify the problem as a lack of both renewable and non-renewable resources, then you invite innovative solutions that likely include conservation, new technology, space exploration, etc... One is clearly superior to the other.

And even if you'd find a way to exploit all the world's resources with a 100% efficiency, these resources would still be finite and, therefore, able to sustain only a finite amount of people. Limiting the amount of people is still the only solution, but of course it goes against the religious mantra of pumping out legions of little religious slaves, therefore it's unacceptable to you.