Over population/Global warming

Post Reply New Topic

We all know at some point, we're going to hit the population limit, or have we already.

In a century we've increased the carbon monoxide in the atmosphere by 20%, which as put a strain on the planet. The aquatic life is suffering, the ocean does the most work converting carbon monoxide. The acidity of the ocean is changing, and becoming to acidic for life to survive in it. The coral reefs are starting to die as a result, and many aquatic animals/planets are struggling as it is.

Noise pollution (boats) are effecting life as well, causing deafness in Dolphins, Wales etc. The noise of boats are causing stress related illnesses, which usually are the leading factor in life or death of the Wales, Dolphins etc. Wales die daily getting hit by boat propellers, but its interesting how far it stretches and how much damage we as humans are doing to the Ecosystem.

If commercial fishing continues the way it is now, in 20 years time all commercial fish will have been fished to extinction. Fact is there are to many people for the ocean to feed, so I ask aren't we already at the population limit? The more people the more cars, the more houses, the more carbon monoxide, the quicker we as a species perish.

Humans are the top predators no one hunts us, nothing keeps our numbers down. We are a virus that tortures the Earth's Ecosystem, until we die taking animals that have survived millions of years with us. We are the end of life not the beginning, intelligence is a curse.
All we've accomplished is to make our lives better at a cost, we've push thousands of animals to extinction.

Why are we here?
What's our purpose?
Were we created only to destroy?

So, knowing what causes pregnancy, why do so many refuse or complain about condoms, why the teenage pregnancy rates, why families with more than 2 kids, why are obstetricians allowed to artificially fertilize more than one egg?
Why do fertility clinics even exist when Earth has millions of orphans?
Why are 'Octomom' and Kate Gosselin, and Angelina Jolie and the Duggars treated like GOOD examples?

Umm, because people are self-centered and delusional and as logical as Spider Monkeys?

Sylkat

I wouldnt worry too much about global warming and Overpopulation [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7as7Ej_U6yU[/youtube]if and when Yellowstone erupts that will solve both issues and lead to another issue all together. The eruption could wipe out a large population of humans also leave enough ash in the atmosphere blotting out the sun for 40 years killing crops and leading to an ice age!

The question of why humans are here is something that I think is completely unsolved. Although I think that the purpose of humans is to destroy all life on Earth and replace it with pollution. Humans have absolutely no ecological niche, and are the most dangerous predators. I've actually come to wonder if perhaps we don't come from some other planet we destroyed, because it's like quite obvious that we don't belong on Earth. I've always thought humans are a curse, which has infected Earth. And of course humans exist to destroy. Just think all the wars and destruction, for one, not to mention that people are always killing people. If humans enjoy killing and wish to drive themselves to extinction, that's very well, but let's not take other species with us.

Dear Persain, you said what I didn't dare to...
We are the only species that does not 'fit' here.

Sylkat

I agree overpopulation is a problem, and a big part of the problem has to do with education, cultural influences, religion and economics. In countries where women are more educated, and people have enough to live on comfortably, birth rates tend to slow down - if there aren't religious or cultural influences that keep people having children.

Why are we here? Anyone's guess. I'd rather each person find a reason they want to be here as an individual than be fed some answer to that one, as a species, that we're all expected to live with.

I think I'm here to learn to love, to be creative, and to enjoy life in my own way.

They are both big problems with no easy solutions. I think that part of the problem is the way the global economy is structured. The fact is, that being environmentally responsible is simply not profitable, so companies aren't going to do it unless they're absolutely forced to by the law. And even then, if a law or regulation is created in one country, they may just move their business to a different one to continue to increase their profit margins. Several years ago I had an idealistic view that we'd get our act together and learn to be more responsible with respect to the environment and resource use, but now I think it's much more likely that we're just going to run ourselves into the ground and not stop until it's too late.

"....just move their business".....hat is what has been happening in America for at least 15 (20?) years!
Remember Bhopal?

Sylkat

I used to think that, too. However, the more I learned about human history, the more I realized just how unlikely it was. The only way people will stop causing harm will be when we become extinct. Unfortunately, by then, we might just have finished off all life on Earth, and maybe even Earth itself.

Written history does give one that idea, but I'm heartened by reading more about anthropology. Civilization has its high points, but its equally low points. If we can abandon some of the lows and keep most of the highs, it is possible we could turn humanity around. Maybe I'm too optimistic though.

Seeing how you seem so concerned about these issues, what are your proposed solutions? Should we try to ban industry altogether? What about legalizing murder or limiting the number of children a family can have via laws allowing for forced abortion (like China)? Should we ban ownership of pets under the idea that it's a form of slavery? I'm sorry, but people have rights, too, you know. How would you like it if the government said that they could kill anyone (yes, anybody) in the name of "saving the planet"?

Speaking of which, why are you so concerned about overpopulation when millions (particularly children) in third world countries have died and continue to die of malaria and other diseases? What about the number of murders worldwide or the number of those who die due to some sort of accident (ex: car wreck)?

Since the thread is about over-population, I do think that this is the appropriate place for our opinions.
You do not feel that we should have these opinions, or that we should not express them?
No one has said one word about killing people.
An example is:
The Chinese people chose how to implement the 'One Child' policy.
The people themselves dumped baby girls in orphanages, and aborted them, not the government.
The Chinese government took a drastic step necessitated by centuries of 10-child families.
That sort of thing was not catastrophic in the ancient world, where 50% childhood death rates were the norm, and 45-50 years was a reasonable lifespan, but it just does not work now.
If China had not forced its people to stop over-breeding, what do you personally think that their situation would be now, considering that they are tearing up their country trying to feed their people and provide them living space.

Sylkat

So-Called Global Warming is a scam in my opinion.

Best Regards,

Jake

I never said you couldn't have or express those opinions, you can have and express whatever opinions you want. This is America, after all. Anyway, to address your post:

1. The one-child policy was implemented by the Chinese government, not the people. They can literally destroy your home and sterilize and imprison you against your will if you have more than one child. Trust me, I've heard about it.

2. The reason they cannot provide for their people is most likely not due to their population, but rather the fact that they are Communist and therefore a welfare state, and these places generally don't turn out well.

3. "The ancient world" is not today, and we have modern technology to treat, prevent, and cure s**t like chickenpox, pneumonia, malaria, etc. Problem is, however, that even if the ban of DDT has not directly caused a rapid-as-fuck upsurge in malaria (which is, mind you, transmitted by mosquitoes), it sure as hell has played a major role. The environmental push also either is or will at some point cause problems for places like Africa, seeing as their government is (or was for a time) being pressured to buy expensive solar panels to use for energy and discouraged from going the route that America and many Western countries have gone, even though they are so poor they can barely feed themselves.

And another thing, there are plenty of people who have advocated for things like mass-murder and illness as means of reducing world population. In fact, one of the inscriptions on the Georgia Guidestones is, and I kid you not, "Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.". Furthermore, even if those radicals are merely a small fringe, I'm sure there are plenty who either agree with them or sympathize with their views, and more where all three came from.

Well, there are a lot of issues brought up in the OP. First, I want to address overpopulation.

The important thing to remember is that population is *not* an endless accelerating process. There's this thing called the demographic transition. As a society industrializes, the death rate falls first as medicine picks up. Then, the birth rate falls as the need for child labor on farms goes down, the cost of raising kids goes up, and, in post-industrial liberal republics, women enter the workforce, marriage changes, and reproductive rights and technology come to bear. The global north, where the most resource consumption per capita is going on, have already gone through the demographic transition to the point where there's now a problem of having too many old people (especially in Japan, parts of Europe, and, to a lesser degree, in the US- though all of these problems with services are also due in part to austerity measures and economic troubles).

The global south has not undergone the demographic transition- in much of it, death rates have fallen and very young societies are growing (that is to say, demographically skewed to the young). If these continue to develop, or at very least embrace reproductive rights and contraception, they can undergo the transition. Some things that would help this includes economic growth distributed towards the working and middle class in these nations, more women's rights over their bodies and in the workplace and public sphere, more programs for the elderly so they don't have to have several kids to hedge their bets towards old age, and making agriculture less labor intensive. The downside is that some of this- such as more machine-based agriculture and greater industrialization- is environmentally destructive in its own right, so if you're going to develop, you're going to have to do sustainably, which is difficult. At any rate, the population is expected to peak at around 9.5 billion around 2050 before it declines, but this is accompanied with the prediction of greater resource use and emissions per capita in the developing world.

But, for this post, setting up that dilemma is enough. I don't want to get into the headache beyond it right now- I just want to highlight that the situation we're dealing with here is heavily based in the demographic transition.

Nonsense. Have you never read anything about Chinese history - or any history for that matter? Famine after famine, for centuries. Millions starved, right up into the 20th century with The Great Famine in China in1959-1961, which killed some 15 million people. Many of those famines occurred well before the existence of Marxism. I'm not for enforced limitations on families BUT I think the rest of the world needs to wake up to the problems of overpopulation.

Read history. Famines haven't only occurred in China, and they are not a forgotten possibility, somewhere in the mists of ancient history. They still happen. Too many people and not enough resources = people starving.

See List of Famines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines

ETA: We have some improvements now, such as better transportation to redistribute food as needed - but oftentimes government - and not just communist governments - stand in the way, or war does, or economics.

As our population grows, more and more wilderness is destroyed to grow food. More and more water resources used up or polluted.

In the past people had lots of babies and they either went hungry or died of disease, and the population grew slowly. Since the 19th century, and especially since the 20th with the development of antibiotics, more of us survive to adulthood, and the population if skyrocketing. The chart at the top of this page is, IMO, rather shocking:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation