Environmentalism and Population

[Burke]

"Humans are a plague on the Earth that need to be controlled by limiting population growth, according to Sir David Attenborough.

"The television presenter said that humans are threatening their own existence and that of other species by using up the world’s resources.

"He said the only way to save the planet from famine and species extinction is to limit human population growth."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ear...enborough.html

By what standard should any human regard humans as a plague on the Earth?

Do men exist for the sake of their surroundings or should it be the other way around?

I realize that the author of this article is hedging somewhat by going on and claiming that mankind is going to suffer also, but is that his main point?

Or is this article an expression of environmentalism as the new religion, the idea that we exist for nature rather than vice versa? And that we will pay for our sins if we don't sacrifice ourselves now?

I realize that there has to be some upper limit to the number of people who can live on the planet, but are we really anywhere near it?

Or is the real problem that most here are irrational and destructive?

I recall reading once that the population of Great Britain in 1850 was about 12 million, and today it is about 60 million, as I recall.

Could 60 million people have lived there in 1850 with the state of technology being what it was then? I doubt it.

At one time, nearly everyone here lived on farms. Today, only a small percentage do. Because of capitalism.

Attenborough seems to have cause and effect reversed. We have had the population growth because of advances in technology, etc., made possible by economic freedom.

That is, because of capitalism.

And what is it that environmentalists propose as solutions to all the problems we have and can foresee?

Why, socialism, of course.

They are the real destroyers.

Pretending to be the salvation.

As for the real "problem" of population growth, capitalism is both the cause and the cure.

One that will eventually take us to the stars as a solution, I imagine.

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by Burke

Do men exist for the sake of their surroundings or should it be the other way around?

A combination. We clearly can use our surroundings, but we also have to be good stewards of it.

[GatorRade]

There is a lot going on in your post. And I was with you for most of it, until your post turned to evil "socialism" again. Either overpopulation is an issue or it is not an issue, but this socialism obsession just clouds the matter in politics.

[wygator]

Originally Posted by GatorRade

There is a lot going on in your post. And I was with you for most of it, until your post turned to evil "socialism" again. Either overpopulation is an issue or it is not an issue, but this socialism obsession just clouds the matter in politics.

Speaking of England, it was Margaret Thatcher who famously said that in socialism you eventually run out of other peoples money. Certainly finance related to services and government are important part of the pieces in a situation with ever increasing population.

[GatorRade]

Originally Posted by wygator

Speaking of England, it was Margaret Thatcher who famously said that in socialism you eventually run out of other peoples money. Certainly finance related to services and government are important part of the pieces in a situation with ever increasing population.

Not sure that I am following, wy. Are you saying that the human population is increasing because socialist governments are allowing it to?

[Burke]

We have had the population growth we've had because of capitalism.

Because people were free to produce and trade.

That is, because they were free to live.

Socialism is just another kind of slave society, some being forced to produce for others.

Instead of being allowed to live for themselves.

In short, socialism as a "solution" for population growth is just a way of not letting people live.

Some "solution."

[OaktownGator]

History has many examples of populations consuming themselves to their own demise.... or the demise of their neighbors (who pay the price for having available resources and not having the means to defend them).

Resources are finite. Our population will be controlled either proactively or reactively... but it will be controlled one way or another.

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by Burke

We have had the population growth we've had because of capitalism.

Because people were free to produce and trade.

That is, because they were free to live.

Socialism is just another kind of slave society, some being forced to produce for others.

Instead of being allowed to live for themselves.

In short, socialism as a "solution" for population growth is just a way of not letting people live.

Some "solution."

so you were just looking for another thread to talk about capitalism being good and socialism being bad?

[GatorRade]

I know what you are saying Burke, but I'm sure that you recognize that what you are presenting is your viewpoint - just as Attenborough is presenting his.

To your viewpoint, I agree that what you are calling capitalism (what I would call "markets") has been the main driver of the increase in the Earth's carrying capacity. You view this as the ability to let people "live", but doesn't this seem a bit arbitrary? Why aren't we at 10 billion or 100 billion people on the Earth? What is stopping us from that ability to live?

Further, there is something a bit tautological in defining increasing population size as the ultimate good: what are the ends? Why bring more people into the world? So that they in turn can bring more people into the world? Must quality of life and quantity of life be perfectly correlated?

[WESGATORS]

Burke, do you believe that resources on this planet are limited or unlimited? Presumably, we all agree that with our current technology, resources are limited. That means that any failure to plan for the future creates a burden on our children. If everybody passes the buck, then the burden build and builds until we are left with a society that will not be able to do anything about it. With that in mind, a rational-minded person should be interested in promoting some portion of our collective efforts into the preservation of our species, no? The question is not one of "should we" but rather of "how much?"

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[Burke]

A few years ago, I read that the entire population of the Earth (then 6 billion) could be put in the state of Texas and the population density would be about the same as that of Paris, France. Between 23 and 24 thousand per square mile. And, as I recall, they could all be fed with food produced here easily.

The fact is that the most beneficial part of our environment in general are other rational, productive people.

The ones who have created the prosperity of modernity and are responsible for the population explosion we are seeing.

If free to do so, people will continue to expand that prosperity and our population growth, and humanity will move into outer space, I believe.

While the anti-human environmentalists will continue to scream about it all.

[madgator]

Originally Posted by OaktownGator

History has many examples of populations consuming themselves to their own demise.... or the demise of their neighbors (who pay the price for having available resources and not having the means to defend them).

Resources are finite. Our population will be controlled either proactively or reactively... but it will be controlled one way or another.

whatever happens it rightfully should happen as course of it's own volition.

[WESGATORS]

Originally Posted by Burke

If free to do so, people will continue to expand that prosperity and our population growth, and humanity will move into outer space, I believe.

Would you be ok with Iran developing a nuclear powered spacecraft to be able to arrive at the planet first and claim it as their own? Or would you prefer for some collective to (try to) make a reasonable determination about an equitable way to use an additional natural resource?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[Burke]

Wes,

You could have made the same claims 500 years ago.

Sure, there is a limit to the number of people the planet can support at a specified level of technology.

But what are those limits?

What are the limits of technogy?

Neither you nor I have a clue.

And neither does Attenborough.

It's just another leftie scare tactic.

Used as a rarionalization for power grabs.

Power grabs that will cause the suffering and death they pretend to decry.

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by Burke

A few years ago, I read that the entire population of the Earth (then 6 billion) could be put in the state of Texas and the population density would be about the same as that of Paris, France. Between 23 and 24 thousand per square mile. And, as I recall, they could all be fed with food produced here easily.

The fact is that the most beneficial part of our environment in general are other rational, productive people.

The ones who have created the prosperity of modernity and are responsible for the population explosion we are seeing.

If free to do so, people will continue to expand that prosperity and our population growth, and humanity will move into outer space, I believe.

While the anti-human environmentalists will continue to scream about it all.

A density of 24,000 people per square mile and we wouldn't have any problem producing all the food we need? With no crop land, range land? We'd have enough water?

[Burke]

Wes,

I could respond to your "Iran" question above, but, after years of explaining things like this to you, I think it would be a waste of time.

Long ago, I came to the conclusion that your mind has been destroyed by religion, progressive education, drugs or something like that. You just don't have the circuits to understand.

[Burke]

River,

They were talking about producing food, etc. in areas outside Texas but still in the US.

[GatorRade]

Originally Posted by Burke

While the anti-human environmentalists will continue to scream about it all.

Well, at least you aren't editorializing.

Burke, I actually agree with you that people often underestimate the value that a human brings into the world. And perhaps they also overvalue Earth's natural resources. But what really scares me about your tone here is that you seem to want your value system to become global law.

Originally Posted by Burke

The fact is that the most beneficial part of our environment in general are other rational, productive people.

Do you really believe that the words 'fact' and 'beneficial' belong in the same sentence? Do you really think that anyone that believes that coral reefs, the Everglades, and the white rhino should be valued above absolute rock-bottom zero is automatically labeled "anti-human"? Personally I don't want to live in your super high population, tree-free future Texas. And what do I get for saying I don't want you to take my Florida and give me your Texas? I get called anti-human.

I don't mind if you don't share my value system, Burke, but do not convince yourself that your values are more important than everyone else's. After all, a wise man once said that the most beneficial part of our environment are other rational people.

[gator7_5]

Mandatory birth control for those on welfare would be a great starting point.

[WESGATORS]

Originally Posted by Burke

Long ago, I came to the conclusion that your mind has been destroyed by religion, progressive education, drugs or something like that. You just don't have the circuits to understand.

You may be right, but that is still a copout. I'll have you know that you won me over with the toll roads idea years ago (I had to see the technology in place to better understand it), but the choice to answer or not is certainly up to you.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS