Environmentalism and Population

[GatorRade]

Originally Posted by madgator

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

At this point, one must wonder what you consider "it's own volition"? Do you not consider the will of the humans in a population to be a part of the volition of the population? Do you believe that no one should be able to see into their own bag of popcorn for fear that simply viewing the remaining level of snack might interfere the sacred "volition" of the popcorn-eating urge?

[Burke]

Here you go: asteroid mining.

http://www.space.com/19368-asteroid-...ndustries.html

[rpmGator]

Always had a hard time explaing hunting to those without a clue. Looks like it fits here also.

In a block of woods, no matter how big or large, there is only enough food or water on it, to help a certan number thrive. As you add to the numbers, at some point you pass the ability of the land to provide, and the entire herd dies due to starvation, lack of water or illness.

The number the earth can provide for is finite, but depends more on wise choices than tech.

Man can make choices to maximize food production, but at the same time it uses up water supply as you grow more. It is a trade off.

Even the oceans can be stripped of food resources if not controlled to keep those sources alive to create more for later.

All the tech in the world can not create crops without fresh water. Man itself has to drink it to survive and we have fools already who would ruin our waters for profit.

At some point, we have to choose to use fresh water for crops, energy, or to drink.

While I argue each day on the need for energy systems that don't use water, to the clueless.

[Burke]

Wes,

After all the responses I've made to your questions over the years, is it really necessary for me to explain that the Iranian govt, as presently constituted, has no rights?

No more rights than a serial killer?

And what that means?

[GatorRade]

Originally Posted by Burke

Wes,

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.

This is exactly what I was alluding to with my post above. You have a rationale for how to handle with world's resources, and it is such a good rationale that anyone in that world that disagrees with it must be brainwashed. In fact, they are so brainwashed that they don't even know that they are damaged and instead believe that it is you that has the mental shortcoming.

But all of this raises one very crucial question: how do you know that you are any different?

[rpmGator]

Commie China had more kids than several capitalist nations combined.

Politics have nothing to do with screwing.

[OaktownGator]

Originally Posted by madgator

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

You said this in response to my statement that our population will be controlled one way or another - either proactively or reactively.

But I'm not sure exactly what you mean... are you saying that reactive population control (war, famine, disease, etc) is the only way population control should occur?

[Itssaul]

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."

You realize once overpopulation becomes a serious problem, millions will die.

The "capitalistic" growth you are talking about is like going on a huge spending spree then being in huge debt as people start to die.

The "socialistic" growth is stagnant, never overreaching and saving itself the huge spike of deaths.

Which one do you prefer?

I for one, don't give a f

Either way nature will reset or stabilize our population

[baygator1]

Originally Posted by 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

Usually a non-starter for me when I see the bolded part.

[myamiG8R]

my liberal "environmentalist" friends always ask if a particular thing or action is "sustainable"... human population growth is clearly not sustainable at it's current level... unfortunately, to suggest that fact and to even think there needs to be a solution is to sound a bit like hitler...