434 2 #1 January 5, 2009 What is the healthy population number for the world? How many is just to many? Is there anything we should do to stop overpopulate the world? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
prodiver913 0 #2 January 5, 2009 I heard a number that was 70 million. That is the healthy number Earth can 100% tolerate. So right about now we are 100 times over crowded. You should read Ishmael by Daniel Quinn. It talks about that. Humans do not live under the laws of the community of life. Say for instance a famine/drought hits Africa. All the animal and plant species suffer a big blow to there populations, not extinct, but a significant loss. Humans though, we go around it. We pump in tons of food and water and medicine allowing ONLY humans and the domesticated animals that WE NEED to survive. By doing this we are not following the natural ways mother nature has in place. Things like the Flu, viruses, disease, natural disasters, etc. are supposed to drastically reduce population sizes. ALL populations. Not just a few while one species continues on raping the planet with an out of control force that thinks the planet was made for them. That's bullshit. We were made for the planet. Mother nature keeps everything in harmony and in order. But not when we go around her laws and do what we want. It sucks but in the end mother nature will not make an exception for us. By the way based on your badass sigline you should definitely read Ishmael, The Story of B, and My Ishmael by Daniel Quinn. It will cover everything. We we are screwing this planet up with over population (like I just talked about), The story of B talks about why we invented religion and how needing to be saved by a savior is not inherent to humanity, it is conditions created by man due to the historical evolution of war, famine, etc. Basically we needed help because with society we started destroying the place, and My Ishmael talks about society and over population some more. Thats my favorite book actually. I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #3 January 5, 2009 According to http://www.optimumpopulation.org the absolute maximum sustainable world population is about 5 billion. Right now, we're overspending the earths resources and sooner or later they'll run out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #4 January 5, 2009 If human beings had smaller, less-well developed brains, we wouldn't have developed the technology that allows us to deal with disease & famine. We would just die off like animals do. Maybe we should give every child a lobotomy at birth, reducing us down to animal-like intelligence. If we were intellectually unable to develop a culture and technology, we would just helplessly die off under pressure, same as other animals. It would be SO much better for the planet. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
434 2 #5 January 5, 2009 Interesting, I will check out the books. Thank you. So maybe empathy is finely what is going to drive us to disaster? We keep alot of humans around the world barely alive where there is not "ment" to be populated, since there is no natural resources enough in the area? Anyway mother earth will finely kick back one day, when we are to many, and that will maybe be even bigger disaster. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Channman 2 #6 January 5, 2009 War and armed conflict around the world, including murder, auto accidents, plane crashes are doing what they can to keep the human population in check. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
434 2 #7 January 5, 2009 It is not doing a good enough job, less and less people die in war, and big disasters. If your statement was true, we did not see the growing numbers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #8 January 5, 2009 QuoteIt is not doing a good enough job, less and less people die in war, and big disasters. Shit, and now that the Bush administration is leaving office, things will get even "worse"! Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #9 January 5, 2009 QuoteI heard a number that was 70 million. That is the healthy number Earth can 100% tolerate. So right about now we are 100 times over crowded. You should read Ishmael by Daniel Quinn. It talks about that. Humans do not live under the laws of the community of life. Say for instance a famine/drought hits Africa. All the animal and plant species suffer a big blow to there populations, not extinct, but a significant loss. Humans though, we go around it. We pump in tons of food and water and medicine allowing ONLY humans and the domesticated animals that WE NEED to survive. By doing this we are not following the natural ways mother nature has in place. Things like the Flu, viruses, disease, natural disasters, etc. are supposed to drastically reduce population sizes. ALL populations. Not just a few while one species continues on raping the planet with an out of control force that thinks the planet was made for them. That's bullshit. We were made for the planet. Mother nature keeps everything in harmony and in order. But not when we go around her laws and do what we want. It sucks but in the end mother nature will not make an exception for us. By the way based on your badass sigline you should definitely read Ishmael, The Story of B, and My Ishmael by Daniel Quinn. It will cover everything. We we are screwing this planet up with over population (like I just talked about), The story of B talks about why we invented religion and how needing to be saved by a savior is not inherent to humanity, it is conditions created by man due to the historical evolution of war, famine, etc. Basically we needed help because with society we started destroying the place, and My Ishmael talks about society and over population some more. Thats my favorite book actually. That is a ridiculously low number; and most likely reflects some bias on how humans "ought" to live. The answer to the original question depends heavily on how the responder believes we "ought" to live, and can therefore not be answered in a perfectly objective manner by any person. One other nitpick. Which natural law is it that says tools and technology are not to be used to improve chances of survival?" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
434 2 #10 January 5, 2009 About 29,000 children under five years of age die every day around the world from preventable causes, said a new report. More than 4 000 people die from Aids every day. Bush have just his small amount of blood on his hands compare to this. I guess it would be better to stop people from getting more babies, than trying to save everyone everywhere on the planet. Especially when we know the condition of the planet, and we in fact do not have the resources to feed everyone. Considering the envirement challenges we will meet in the future! Maybe some of the religions should considering birth controll? I believe this is a better and human way for the population, and we will have less war, less huge differences, and less suffering. http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/404299/study_millions_of_kids_die_early_each_year/index.html http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/10/world/main4660594.shtml?source=RSSattr=Health_4660594 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-boyce/over-4000-people-will-die_b_147310.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
micro 0 #11 January 5, 2009 QuoteAbout 29,000 children under five years of age die every day around the world from preventable causes, said a new report. More than 4 000 people die from Aids every day. Bush have just his small amount of blood on his hands compare to this. I guess it would be better to stop people from getting more babies, than trying to save everyone everywhere on the planet. Especially when we know the condition of the planet, and we in fact do not have the resources to feed everyone. Considering the envirement challenges we will meet in the future! Maybe some of the religions should considering birth controll? I believe this is a better and human way for the population, and we will have less war, less huge differences, and less suffering. http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/404299/study_millions_of_kids_die_early_each_year/index.html http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/10/world/main4660594.shtml?source=RSSattr=Health_4660594 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-boyce/over-4000-people-will-die_b_147310.html So what exactly do you propose? Mandatory use of birth control? Mandatory child limits? Mandatory sterilization? Forced abortions for those who don't comply? I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
434 2 #12 January 5, 2009 I would like to turn it around! In som areas where there are no water, no food, and they can only survive by aid! They do not get information about birth controll, og guidelines for stopping over populating in areas where there are nothing. Wouldnt this stopp their suffering? Just asking when you can read about numbers like this: 850 million people go to bed every night with empty stomachs Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #13 January 5, 2009 >Mandatory use of birth control? Mandatory child limits? Mandatory sterilization? >Forced abortions for those who don't comply? I'd prefer optional (but available) birth control, and optional (but with incentives) child limits. Send one condom for every ten pounds of flour, and in ten years you won't have to send thirty pounds of flour. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #14 January 5, 2009 QuoteEspecially when we know the condition of the planet, and we in fact do not have the resources to feed everyone. That is incorrect. There is plenty of food for everyone. The challenge is getting everybody on the same page on how to distribute it. (Or even agreeing it should be shared without qualification or reservation). There are resources aplenty for everyone, as long as everyone does not insist on living like royalty. The challenge is that it is not distributed equally; and many would say it is not distributed equitably either. Starvation (like underdevelpment in general) is a process, not a status." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
434 2 #15 January 5, 2009 There is food enough at what cost? The way we distribute, produce, packing and handling today have a huge impact on the enviroment. We will loose in the end anyway! Is there really a human right to make unlimited of children if the only thing they going to experience in life starvation and a little bit aid to keep them alive? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #16 January 5, 2009 The theme of this whole thread is silly. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #17 January 5, 2009 We can support everyone we currently have. The US could support twice it's current population without increasing food consumption. If you don't believe me go check out your local all you can eat. If North America, Australia and Argentina lowered our protein to carbohydrate ratios that would help too. On matters other than food technology can increase the holding capacity of the planet greatly. Green power production is reducing pollution/Joule greatly. Of course the result is just more production not less pollution, but we have found tech fixes in the past. If you are old enough to remember LA in the 70's you will know what I mean. More recent examples are a reduction of acid rain in the great lakes region and the CFC treaty. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
434 2 #18 January 5, 2009 Why so Spedracer? We have to face it one day even you think it is stupid or not. It is a real problem in the future! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #19 January 5, 2009 Read my other posts in the thread & think about it. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #20 January 5, 2009 Quote Just asking when you can read about numbers like this: 850 million people go to bed every night with empty stomachs So is that part of the problem or part of the solution? You talk about the process of nature, well famine is a natural part of the system; so is our struggle to defeat it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #21 January 5, 2009 Here are the arguments put forward in this thread, often by the same people: 1) Not enough human beings are dying of famine and disease and war, and that is a Bad Thing. 2) Too many human beings are dying of famine and disease and war, and that is a Bad Thing. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
micro 0 #22 January 5, 2009 Quote The theme of this whole thread is silly. I still have a hard time believing you're not black from your avatar. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #23 January 5, 2009 >We can support everyone we currently have. . . . >we can increase the holding capacity of the planet greatly. Agreed to both, but we have to be VERY careful how we do it - and it will cost a lot of money. Which is OK, but we have to agree to do that up front, not just burn through all our oil, soil and buffers and then hope the next generation takes care of it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #24 January 5, 2009 Yes, there is no doubt that we are currently in a "carrying capacity deficit." Couple that with an increasing population we need to change both our supply and demand equations if we wish to avoid an environmental market correction. The pace of technological advance is simply not keeping up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #25 January 5, 2009 QuoteI believe this is a better and human way for the population, and we will have less war, less huge differences, and less suffering. You think we'll have less war, less differences, and less suffering if the global population is reduced? The only way that would be true is if entire cultures are eliminated. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
