[OT] Saving the planet is quiet work.

[Darkness]

Guys, no heated debate, please. Just sayin', ya know...

Thank you.

- Darkness

 

[drnuncheon]

It would be much better to now really curb the population growth than to notice in N years that "oops, ecosystem failed at 40 billion." (or whatever the population limit will be).

So...letting people starve to death is the best method of controlling population growth?

Y'know, if you believe that, there's a really easy way to start.

J
Oh. You meant other people.

 

[Bagpuss]

Hmm perhaps its because Nutkinland is running so slow?

 

[Darkness]

Hmm perhaps its because Nutkinland is running so slow?

Preach it, brother...

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

'Thinking rationally' is often overrated and frequently highly problematic.

Now 'being rational' is something else all together.

Plus, I would argue that feeding people good food is a pretty unquestionably nice act.

I like it when people do that for me and am always happy to return the favor.

Also the best population control is to live in an industrialized/developed society or a traditional society as opposed to a industrializing/developing society.

Since traditional societies appear to have a lot of difficulty defending themselves against everyone else, the best bet for everybody seems to be to shoot for decreasing the amount of time it takes an industrializing society to develop into something else.

Golden wheat certainly wouldn't seem to be something that would hurt that goal.

 

[herald]

I haer the footfalls of a locksmith comming.....


Politics, politics, politics..........

 

[Tratyn Runewind]

(*blows Will save *)

Hello,

Posted by Numion:
I don't "feel" about this thing. I just thought about it rationally. My feelings would of course tell me that more humans is better, like everyone else.

Ah, rationality. The excuse of many regimes throughout history for the most barbaric physical and psychological cruelties and for intrusive dictation of the most intimate details of ordinary peoples' lives. It truly makes me wonder, how many of the people who have reached similar "rational" conclusions have taken the next logically consistent step of having themselves sterilized? Or does "rationality" dictate that their own genes are (what a coincidence!) superior enough to pass on to a next generation?

Posted by LostSoul:
I mean, a hundred years ago, "the world" couldn't support the five or so billion people who live on it now. Now it can. What does that mean?

Posted by Numion:
That the world can support infinite number of humans? Surely not.

That none of the people reading this thread have heard the term "reductio ad absurdum"? Surely not. The casual invocation of this basic logical fallacy must surely raise questions about the quality of the "rationality" that led to its poster's conclusions.

RSKennan basically has the right of it. Over the long term, resources are limited by human ingenuity and will alone. As for the world supporting exponentially increasing numbers of humans - well, the true limits are very much an open question. But you can be sure that long before those limits are reached, either 1) economic forces will have made it practical (and, indeed, probably unavoidable) for humans to spread to other worlds, or 2) powers standing against the tide of those economic forces will have spilled enough blood and ruined enough lives to keep them from coming into play.

Hmm, sounds like a potentially interesting (if grim) sci-fi campaign for the sort of people who read a little too much Rand, Heinlein, and L. Neil Smith...

Posted by Darkness:
Guys, no heated debate, please. Just sayin', ya know...

Thank you.

Hopefully this post passes muster. I've avoided the ad hominem fallacy, at any rate, and anything likely to offend anyone's grandmother...

Posted by Dr. Strangemonkey:
'Thinking rationally' is often overrated and frequently highly problematic.

Now 'being rational' is something else all together.

Or, as one screenwriter put it, "Logic is the beginning of wisdom - not the end."

 

[Wormwood]

If anyone would like to help reduce the earths population, I cheerfully invite them to lead by example.

 

[Sixchan]

I would like to direct everyone who is in favour of poulation control here.

I'm sure that would help, right?

 

[Ysgarran]

It seems to me historical arguments of world overpopulation are greatly exaggerated.

They certainly have been historically exaggerated but I would like to see some numbers of available water supplies versus sustainable growth. I AM genuinely curious about your point of view visive regarding water which I see as the root of many problems in the mid-term future.

Don't get me wrong. Fewer births per year with continued increases in productivity would be beneficial to all of us, and would raise the average standard of living, but sustainability is for me and many others a non-issue. We will continue to meet the needs of our population, as long as we don't let greed and politics get in the way.

You pose a pretty impossible problem here, one that I don't see having any solution. Have you read about what is happening in Pakistan and the Indus river? About the desertification problems in China? Africa? What are the root causes of those problems?

There is a relationship between sustainability and people's standard of living. Those who 'have' are very often not willing to share with those who don't. I just don't see that changing any time soon.

I'd like to post some more thoughts but figured I should get this in before things get locked down...

later,
Ysgarran.