Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
How long can society sustain its growing population?
Replies
-
stanmann571 wrote: »The problem is that unless those resources are protected with force, the evil men who rule those poor starving nations will destroy the food on the docks.
TONS of food has been sent to Africa as aid by both nations and private charities and been destroyed, blocked, or left to rot by the governments of those poor nations.
I'm well aware of that. Which is why I think we can't support earth's current population, let alone a growing one, even though we actually have the capabilities to do so. We have a lot of just awful people making decisions for huge chunks of society, and decent people who have been blinded by power and greed (or going along with atrocity because they fear for their own lives and the lives of their families) all over the globe. I don't see any evidence of people successfully coming together to fix *kitten*.
The problem is whenever people come together to fix *kitten*-Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, etc.
Other people come along and criticize(while not suggesting alternatives) those who are contributing to fixing things.1 -
We could use a judgment day; just my opinion - the world would be a better place with say 50% cut
(Bias from living in one of the highest population dense parts of US)3 -
pinggolfer96 wrote: »Basically the title. We’ve increase by over 2.5 billion in a little over a couple decades. How do you think we will sustain ourselves or avoid problems (which we already have) like drought, increased Factory farming, extremely populated areas....etc. just curious on your opinion of how it will be in let’s say 50-100 years!
The next 50-100 years, your lifetime, is easy. There may be 7 billion of us, and we may get to 9 billion, but we're expecting to stabilize at 9 billion. Factory farming is not a problem.
People moving to cities is not a problem.
Problems are more the evolutionary advantages that bacteria and viruses get when we offer a target rich environment in densely populated cities.1 -
stanmann571 wrote: »Earth could support billions more human. At this point we produce more than enough food to feed everyone. We have technology to provide clean drinking water to everyone. We have clean energy sources. We have powerful healthcare abilities. We have room and resources. We have technology that makes like easier and more efficient. We know so, so much more about the world and how it works than we did even 50 years ago.
We're just really bad stewards of all the awesome *kitten* we've done, and generally are very selfish and competitive. We don't always use logic and our collective reason is tainted by emotion and limited worldview. So instead we have very poor nations, starving people, people without shelter or water, people who can't get basic medical care, people who kill people for resources and space. At this point it's a matter of humanity and how much people actually care to solve problems and show compassion beyond immediate family and friends. Honestly, from where I sit, it's not looking great.
The problem is that unless those resources are protected with force, the evil men who rule those poor starving nations will destroy the food on the docks.
TONS of food has been sent to Africa as aid by both nations and private charities and been destroyed, blocked, or left to rot by the governments of those poor nations.
Despite the despots, even in Africa, more people are able to get good food and clean water than in previous decades of the 20th century. No, it's not perfect, but it's moving toward better.2 -
Keto_Vampire wrote: »We could use a judgment day; just my opinion - the world would be a better place with say 50% cut
(Bias from living in one of the highest population dense parts of US)
Thanos...is that you?6 -
Nah, just tired of feeling people breathe on me, touching/bumping into, clostrophobia, feeling like I'm always being watched, having no personal space, having cars drive on my ***, etc. Try living in Boston, NYC, or NJ for a few years & you'll understand (these places are overdeveloped hell holes with just too many people jam packed into too small of areas...a chicken coop)Aaron_K123 wrote: »Keto_Vampire wrote: »We could use a judgment day; just my opinion - the world would be a better place with say 50% cut
(Bias from living in one of the highest population dense parts of US)
Thanos...is that you?
1 -
I've noticed an increasing anti-human element to the environmental movement. Funny...well actually quite sad... how all those believing the world is going to end always imagine themselves among the survivors...2
-
Keto_Vampire wrote: »
Nah, just tired of feeling people breathe on me, touching/bumping into, clostrophobia, feeling like I'm always being watched, having no personal space, having cars drive on my ***, etc. Try living in Boston, NYC, or NJ for a few years & you'll understand (these places are overdeveloped hell holes with just too many people jam packed into too small of areas...a chicken coop)Aaron_K123 wrote: »Keto_Vampire wrote: »We could use a judgment day; just my opinion - the world would be a better place with say 50% cut
(Bias from living in one of the highest population dense parts of US)
Thanos...is that you?
I mean, I feel like it would be easier for you to move to a less densely populated area than it would be for the 50% of the population you'd kill off so you don't have to deal with someone bumping into you.8 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Keto_Vampire wrote: »
Nah, just tired of feeling people breathe on me, touching/bumping into, clostrophobia, feeling like I'm always being watched, having no personal space, having cars drive on my ***, etc. Try living in Boston, NYC, or NJ for a few years & you'll understand (these places are overdeveloped hell holes with just too many people jam packed into too small of areas...a chicken coop)Aaron_K123 wrote: »Keto_Vampire wrote: »We could use a judgment day; just my opinion - the world would be a better place with say 50% cut
(Bias from living in one of the highest population dense parts of US)
Thanos...is that you?
I mean, I feel like it would be easier for you to move to a less densely populated area than it would be for the 50% of the population you'd kill off so you don't have to deal with someone bumping into you.
Wrote a response listing some places with lot's of open space, then hit backspace and IE nuked it.
Anyways. Totally agree.2 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Unfortunately I think the news organizations in the developed world tend to promote content that is quite negative because that tends to garner more attention and views. Gives people the impression that the world is going to hell in a handbasket when the reality, if you look at the data, is that all indicators of quality of living globally (health, life expectancy, wealth, child mortality etc) have been steadily and rapidly increasing up until the present day. In terms of quality of life the world is better off now than it has ever been and yet you would not get that impression from our news sources.
I imagine if the news did up covering the diminishing birth rates (which are most certainly a good thing tied to improvements in quality of life) that they will cover it in terms of loss of fertility leading to some doomsday scenario like the Handmaid's Tale or something.
Yeah. News is now clickbate. Long form journalism is dying and the age old saying of, "if it bleeds, it leads," has only become more apparent and prevalent.
A staple of journalism training for more than 40 years has been misery and failure sells. Long form was always a small segment of the industry, but accessibility skews our perception.
I've worked in several of the countries mentioned upthread, and wouldn't recognize them in the news media. I'm very amused by the perception of the UK, and Europe, that I hear from those in the US. Again, doesn't reflect the reality.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Keto_Vampire wrote: »
Nah, just tired of feeling people breathe on me, touching/bumping into, clostrophobia, feeling like I'm always being watched, having no personal space, having cars drive on my ***, etc. Try living in Boston, NYC, or NJ for a few years & you'll understand (these places are overdeveloped hell holes with just too many people jam packed into too small of areas...a chicken coop)Aaron_K123 wrote: »Keto_Vampire wrote: »We could use a judgment day; just my opinion - the world would be a better place with say 50% cut
(Bias from living in one of the highest population dense parts of US)
Thanos...is that you?
I mean, I feel like it would be easier for you to move to a less densely populated area than it would be for the 50% of the population you'd kill off so you don't have to deal with someone bumping into you.
Lots of barriers towards doing this...I won't go into details as many are personal &/or work related.
Still in favor of that whole death & destruction thing...it would be the environmentally responsible thing to do
2 -
Keto_Vampire wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Keto_Vampire wrote: »
Nah, just tired of feeling people breathe on me, touching/bumping into, clostrophobia, feeling like I'm always being watched, having no personal space, having cars drive on my ***, etc. Try living in Boston, NYC, or NJ for a few years & you'll understand (these places are overdeveloped hell holes with just too many people jam packed into too small of areas...a chicken coop)Aaron_K123 wrote: »Keto_Vampire wrote: »We could use a judgment day; just my opinion - the world would be a better place with say 50% cut
(Bias from living in one of the highest population dense parts of US)
Thanos...is that you?
I mean, I feel like it would be easier for you to move to a less densely populated area than it would be for the 50% of the population you'd kill off so you don't have to deal with someone bumping into you.
Lots of barriers towards doing this...I won't go into details as many are personal &/or work related.
Still in favor of that whole death & destruction thing...it would be the environmentally responsible thing to do
Sure, I understand that. Professional reasons have me in a major city myself. My point is that life is a series of trade-offs and wishing death on huge numbers of people because you've *chosen* to live in a major city just seems really dark to me.4 -
Keto_Vampire wrote: »We could use a judgment day; just my opinion - the world would be a better place with say 50% cut
(Bias from living in one of the highest population dense parts of US)
Agreed. And I live in rural america.2 -
Keto_Vampire wrote: »We could use a judgment day; just my opinion - the world would be a better place with say 50% cut
(Bias from living in one of the highest population dense parts of US)
Agreed. And I live in rural america.
Curious as to which side you guys put yourself on this "cut"?6 -
Keto_Vampire wrote: »We could use a judgment day; just my opinion - the world would be a better place with say 50% cut
(Bias from living in one of the highest population dense parts of US)
Agreed. And I live in rural america.
Curious as to which side you guys put yourself on this "cut"?
Doesn't matter. In an ideal world, the cut would either include or exclude my entire family, but this is a greater good conversation, so it's not really about me, or any 1 person/group/etc.2 -
stanmann571 wrote: »The problem is that unless those resources are protected with force, the evil men who rule those poor starving nations will destroy the food on the docks.
TONS of food has been sent to Africa as aid by both nations and private charities and been destroyed, blocked, or left to rot by the governments of those poor nations.
Interesting juxtaposition...pinggolfer96 wrote: »Exactly, in the end, there’s no civil solution. It’s king of the hill when that time comes lol0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Keto_Vampire wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Keto_Vampire wrote: »
Nah, just tired of feeling people breathe on me, touching/bumping into, clostrophobia, feeling like I'm always being watched, having no personal space, having cars drive on my ***, etc. Try living in Boston, NYC, or NJ for a few years & you'll understand (these places are overdeveloped hell holes with just too many people jam packed into too small of areas...a chicken coop)Aaron_K123 wrote: »Keto_Vampire wrote: »We could use a judgment day; just my opinion - the world would be a better place with say 50% cut
(Bias from living in one of the highest population dense parts of US)
Thanos...is that you?
I mean, I feel like it would be easier for you to move to a less densely populated area than it would be for the 50% of the population you'd kill off so you don't have to deal with someone bumping into you.
Lots of barriers towards doing this...I won't go into details as many are personal &/or work related.
Still in favor of that whole death & destruction thing...it would be the environmentally responsible thing to do
Sure, I understand that. Professional reasons have me in a major city myself. My point is that life is a series of trade-offs and wishing death on huge numbers of people because you've *chosen* to live in a major city just seems really dark to me.
Not wishing death upon anyone, my opinion is that the world would be a better place with less humans.
Officially done with replying & others misinterpreting/twisting my words around (internet sarcasm/joking is not an easy to interpret language apparently)...this isn't a Sean Spicer press conference. #"Crystal clear"1 -
Keto_Vampire wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Keto_Vampire wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Keto_Vampire wrote: »
Nah, just tired of feeling people breathe on me, touching/bumping into, clostrophobia, feeling like I'm always being watched, having no personal space, having cars drive on my ***, etc. Try living in Boston, NYC, or NJ for a few years & you'll understand (these places are overdeveloped hell holes with just too many people jam packed into too small of areas...a chicken coop)Aaron_K123 wrote: »Keto_Vampire wrote: »We could use a judgment day; just my opinion - the world would be a better place with say 50% cut
(Bias from living in one of the highest population dense parts of US)
Thanos...is that you?
I mean, I feel like it would be easier for you to move to a less densely populated area than it would be for the 50% of the population you'd kill off so you don't have to deal with someone bumping into you.
Lots of barriers towards doing this...I won't go into details as many are personal &/or work related.
Still in favor of that whole death & destruction thing...it would be the environmentally responsible thing to do
Sure, I understand that. Professional reasons have me in a major city myself. My point is that life is a series of trade-offs and wishing death on huge numbers of people because you've *chosen* to live in a major city just seems really dark to me.
Not wishing death upon anyone, my opinion is that the world would be a better place with less humans.
Officially done with replying & others misinterpreting/twisting my words around (internet sarcasm/joking is not an easy to interpret language apparently)...this isn't a Sean Spicer press conference. #"Crystal clear"
I'm sorry you feel misinterpreted, that wasn't my intention. When you wrote: "We could use a judgment day; just my opinion - the world would be a better place with say 50% cut," I didn't see how that would come about without lives ending.3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Keto_Vampire wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Keto_Vampire wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Keto_Vampire wrote: »
Nah, just tired of feeling people breathe on me, touching/bumping into, clostrophobia, feeling like I'm always being watched, having no personal space, having cars drive on my ***, etc. Try living in Boston, NYC, or NJ for a few years & you'll understand (these places are overdeveloped hell holes with just too many people jam packed into too small of areas...a chicken coop)Aaron_K123 wrote: »Keto_Vampire wrote: »We could use a judgment day; just my opinion - the world would be a better place with say 50% cut
(Bias from living in one of the highest population dense parts of US)
Thanos...is that you?
I mean, I feel like it would be easier for you to move to a less densely populated area than it would be for the 50% of the population you'd kill off so you don't have to deal with someone bumping into you.
Lots of barriers towards doing this...I won't go into details as many are personal &/or work related.
Still in favor of that whole death & destruction thing...it would be the environmentally responsible thing to do
Sure, I understand that. Professional reasons have me in a major city myself. My point is that life is a series of trade-offs and wishing death on huge numbers of people because you've *chosen* to live in a major city just seems really dark to me.
Not wishing death upon anyone, my opinion is that the world would be a better place with less humans.
Officially done with replying & others misinterpreting/twisting my words around (internet sarcasm/joking is not an easy to interpret language apparently)...this isn't a Sean Spicer press conference. #"Crystal clear"
I'm sorry you feel misinterpreted, that wasn't my intention. When you wrote: "We could use a judgment day; just my opinion - the world would be a better place with say 50% cut," I didn't see how that would come about without lives ending.
Plagues are historically the most democratic solution to overcrowding, and while overcrowding is not the proximate cause of any given plague, higher population zones contribute to the spread and severity of a given disease and allow critical mass to be gained for a plague or epidemic.
That being said, I'm not on team cull, but recognize that without the discovery of new real estate(space travel) or new fuel/food science, a global plague/epidemic taking 30-50% of the world's population is inevitable within 50 years or so. And possibly even if we do have a diaspora, we may still have such an event. it will reduce the impact.1 -
stanmann571 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Keto_Vampire wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Keto_Vampire wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Keto_Vampire wrote: »
Nah, just tired of feeling people breathe on me, touching/bumping into, clostrophobia, feeling like I'm always being watched, having no personal space, having cars drive on my ***, etc. Try living in Boston, NYC, or NJ for a few years & you'll understand (these places are overdeveloped hell holes with just too many people jam packed into too small of areas...a chicken coop)Aaron_K123 wrote: »Keto_Vampire wrote: »We could use a judgment day; just my opinion - the world would be a better place with say 50% cut
(Bias from living in one of the highest population dense parts of US)
Thanos...is that you?
I mean, I feel like it would be easier for you to move to a less densely populated area than it would be for the 50% of the population you'd kill off so you don't have to deal with someone bumping into you.
Lots of barriers towards doing this...I won't go into details as many are personal &/or work related.
Still in favor of that whole death & destruction thing...it would be the environmentally responsible thing to do
Sure, I understand that. Professional reasons have me in a major city myself. My point is that life is a series of trade-offs and wishing death on huge numbers of people because you've *chosen* to live in a major city just seems really dark to me.
Not wishing death upon anyone, my opinion is that the world would be a better place with less humans.
Officially done with replying & others misinterpreting/twisting my words around (internet sarcasm/joking is not an easy to interpret language apparently)...this isn't a Sean Spicer press conference. #"Crystal clear"
I'm sorry you feel misinterpreted, that wasn't my intention. When you wrote: "We could use a judgment day; just my opinion - the world would be a better place with say 50% cut," I didn't see how that would come about without lives ending.
Plagues are historically the most democratic solution to overcrowding, and while overcrowding is not the proximate cause of any given plague, higher population zones contribute to the spread and severity of a given disease and allow critical mass to be gained for a plague or epidemic.
That being said, I'm not on team cull, but recognize that without the discovery of new real estate(space travel) or new fuel/food science, a global plague/epidemic taking 30-50% of the world's population is inevitable within 50 years or so. And possibly even if we do have a diaspora, we may still have such an event. it will reduce the impact.
The claim years ago was that you could fit the world's population in the state of Texas with typical urban living conditions. By today's standards by my calculations you could fit the world's population in Australia on .25 acre plots.
It isn't a matter of space or resources, it's a matter of logistics and stability.
The history of human overpopulation is pretty terrifying as solutions are often "cullings" of those deemed inferior.1 -
stanmann571 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Keto_Vampire wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Keto_Vampire wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Keto_Vampire wrote: »
Nah, just tired of feeling people breathe on me, touching/bumping into, clostrophobia, feeling like I'm always being watched, having no personal space, having cars drive on my ***, etc. Try living in Boston, NYC, or NJ for a few years & you'll understand (these places are overdeveloped hell holes with just too many people jam packed into too small of areas...a chicken coop)Aaron_K123 wrote: »Keto_Vampire wrote: »We could use a judgment day; just my opinion - the world would be a better place with say 50% cut
(Bias from living in one of the highest population dense parts of US)
Thanos...is that you?
I mean, I feel like it would be easier for you to move to a less densely populated area than it would be for the 50% of the population you'd kill off so you don't have to deal with someone bumping into you.
Lots of barriers towards doing this...I won't go into details as many are personal &/or work related.
Still in favor of that whole death & destruction thing...it would be the environmentally responsible thing to do
Sure, I understand that. Professional reasons have me in a major city myself. My point is that life is a series of trade-offs and wishing death on huge numbers of people because you've *chosen* to live in a major city just seems really dark to me.
Not wishing death upon anyone, my opinion is that the world would be a better place with less humans.
Officially done with replying & others misinterpreting/twisting my words around (internet sarcasm/joking is not an easy to interpret language apparently)...this isn't a Sean Spicer press conference. #"Crystal clear"
I'm sorry you feel misinterpreted, that wasn't my intention. When you wrote: "We could use a judgment day; just my opinion - the world would be a better place with say 50% cut," I didn't see how that would come about without lives ending.
Plagues are historically the most democratic solution to overcrowding, and while overcrowding is not the proximate cause of any given plague, higher population zones contribute to the spread and severity of a given disease and allow critical mass to be gained for a plague or epidemic.
That being said, I'm not on team cull, but recognize that without the discovery of new real estate(space travel) or new fuel/food science, a global plague/epidemic taking 30-50% of the world's population is inevitable within 50 years or so. And possibly even if we do have a diaspora, we may still have such an event. it will reduce the impact.
The claim years ago was that you could fit the world's population in the state of Texas with typical urban living conditions. By today's standards by my calculations you could fit the world's population in Australia on .25 acre plots.
It isn't a matter of space or resources, it's a matter of logistics and stability.
The history of human overpopulation is pretty terrifying as solutions are often "cullings" of those deemed inferior.
Which is why I'm not on team cull. Ultimately everyone on team cull has a set of criteria, and they overlap, ultimately meaning that whether I am or am not on any given members criteria sheet someone on team cull has a list of criteria that overlaps with me, or my wife, or my family, or my immediate friend circle.
And yes, those calculations seem pretty close to right.
And .25 acres is actually quite a lot of space per person, assuming water accessibility and willingness to subsistence farm.2 -
I love the mindset "we need a plague because the Earth is too overcrowded". Like the person making that statement isn't burning up his share of resources and wouldn't likely die in a plague as well, lol.
It is the same people that complain "there are too many people at this event/bar/restaurant!" - you're here too, adding to the problem, right?
8 -
Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »I love the mindset "we need a plague because the Earth is too overcrowded". Like the person making that statement isn't burning up his share of resources and wouldn't likely die in a plague as well, lol.
It is the same people that complain "there are too many people at this event/bar/restaurant!" - you're here too, adding to the problem, right?
My husband gets mad when traffic is slow on the interstate sometimes and grumbles about how all these people can't really need to be on the road. But I'm sitting there biting my tongue because we're in our car too . . .5 -
Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »I love the mindset "we need a plague because the Earth is too overcrowded". Like the person making that statement isn't burning up his share of resources and wouldn't likely die in a plague as well, lol.
It is the same people that complain "there are too many people at this event/bar/restaurant!" - you're here too, adding to the problem, right?
It's not ALWAYS a judgement on OTHERS. At least not in my case. It's an assessment of humanity as a whole. Every "big problem" (famine, conflict, global warming, etc) is cause by or exacerbated by the increases in population. Are there other factors too? Yes. But an ice age or plague or whatever will have more long term benefit than not.
IMO.2 -
stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Keto_Vampire wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Keto_Vampire wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Keto_Vampire wrote: »
Nah, just tired of feeling people breathe on me, touching/bumping into, clostrophobia, feeling like I'm always being watched, having no personal space, having cars drive on my ***, etc. Try living in Boston, NYC, or NJ for a few years & you'll understand (these places are overdeveloped hell holes with just too many people jam packed into too small of areas...a chicken coop)Aaron_K123 wrote: »Keto_Vampire wrote: »We could use a judgment day; just my opinion - the world would be a better place with say 50% cut
(Bias from living in one of the highest population dense parts of US)
Thanos...is that you?
I mean, I feel like it would be easier for you to move to a less densely populated area than it would be for the 50% of the population you'd kill off so you don't have to deal with someone bumping into you.
Lots of barriers towards doing this...I won't go into details as many are personal &/or work related.
Still in favor of that whole death & destruction thing...it would be the environmentally responsible thing to do
Sure, I understand that. Professional reasons have me in a major city myself. My point is that life is a series of trade-offs and wishing death on huge numbers of people because you've *chosen* to live in a major city just seems really dark to me.
Not wishing death upon anyone, my opinion is that the world would be a better place with less humans.
Officially done with replying & others misinterpreting/twisting my words around (internet sarcasm/joking is not an easy to interpret language apparently)...this isn't a Sean Spicer press conference. #"Crystal clear"
I'm sorry you feel misinterpreted, that wasn't my intention. When you wrote: "We could use a judgment day; just my opinion - the world would be a better place with say 50% cut," I didn't see how that would come about without lives ending.
Plagues are historically the most democratic solution to overcrowding, and while overcrowding is not the proximate cause of any given plague, higher population zones contribute to the spread and severity of a given disease and allow critical mass to be gained for a plague or epidemic.
That being said, I'm not on team cull, but recognize that without the discovery of new real estate(space travel) or new fuel/food science, a global plague/epidemic taking 30-50% of the world's population is inevitable within 50 years or so. And possibly even if we do have a diaspora, we may still have such an event. it will reduce the impact.
The claim years ago was that you could fit the world's population in the state of Texas with typical urban living conditions. By today's standards by my calculations you could fit the world's population in Australia on .25 acre plots.
It isn't a matter of space or resources, it's a matter of logistics and stability.
The history of human overpopulation is pretty terrifying as solutions are often "cullings" of those deemed inferior.
Which is why I'm not on team cull. Ultimately everyone on team cull has a set of criteria, and they overlap, ultimately meaning that whether I am or am not on any given members criteria sheet someone on team cull has a list of criteria that overlaps with me, or my wife, or my family, or my immediate friend circle.
And yes, those calculations seem pretty close to right.
And .25 acres is actually quite a lot of space per person, assuming water accessibility and willingness to subsistence farm.
There's a revolting element of narcissism that exists in team cull, unless the solution involves an element of self sacrifice of course....I have yet to see this proposed in any solution.
Similar to weight management there's a tremendous amount of misinformation out there. A review of objective evidence clearly shows that there is no current problem with human overpopulation. Furthermore there is little to no reason to believe that there is a pending problem requiring dramatic intervention along the line of the eugenics movement. The fact that a problem may arise in the future is what drives innovation.1 -
It's too late already. Over-consumption of Earth's resources has led to global climate change, which has now reached irreversible levels. The only question is: Will humanity work together in an effective way to slow our inevitable demise? The answer, IMO, is a resounding "no."
Sure, many of us are doing things to be more "green," but the single most effective measure is to have fewer children. Very few of us are making the decision to remain childfree. Those of us who do are constantly pressured by family, friends, and even strangers to change our mind. Conversely, I've never seen it suggested to not procreate outside of groups who are known to already agree with the sentiment. When suggested outside of such groups, one is shot down with accusations of having racial or ethnic bias even when the suggestion is that nobody procreate regardless of their heritage. As a result of this stubborn culture, we are going to continue to see population growth and over-consumption of resources at faster and faster rates all the way up until we make ourselves extinct as a species.7 -
For seeing a reemergence of infectious disease (resistance, mutations outpacing research and development & innovation in creating new mechanisms of action aimed at selectivity for various bacterial & viral structures over host cells). Let natural selection determine those who survive
I choose not to procreate for the mindless sake of procreating (sorry, I just don't follow the BS societal norms...get married, start a family (because your parents want to become grandparents...), own a home, etc...more freedom from not having a family IMHO). This might correct itself with the ever increasing cost of living & starting adulthood debt for up and coming millennials3 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »It's too late already. Over-consumption of Earth's resources has led to global climate change, which has now reached irreversible levels. The only question is: Will humanity work together in an effective way to slow our inevitable demise? The answer, IMO, is a resounding "no."
Sure, many of us are doing things to be more "green," but the single most effective measure is to have fewer children. Very few of us are making the decision to remain childfree. Those of us who do are constantly pressured by family, friends, and even strangers to change our mind. Conversely, I've never seen it suggested to not procreate outside of groups who are known to already agree with the sentiment. When suggested outside of such groups, one is shot down with accusations of having racial or ethnic bias even when the suggestion is that nobody procreate regardless of their heritage. As a result of this stubborn culture, we are going to continue to see population growth and over-consumption of resources at faster and faster rates all the way up until we make ourselves extinct as a species.
That’s one of the best parodies I’ve ever read. First class. And amusing too6 -
stanmann571 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »It's too late already. Over-consumption of Earth's resources has led to global climate change, which has now reached irreversible levels. The only question is: Will humanity work together in an effective way to slow our inevitable demise? The answer, IMO, is a resounding "no."
Sure, many of us are doing things to be more "green," but the single most effective measure is to have fewer children. Very few of us are making the decision to remain childfree. Those of us who do are constantly pressured by family, friends, and even strangers to change our mind. Conversely, I've never seen it suggested to not procreate outside of groups who are known to already agree with the sentiment. When suggested outside of such groups, one is shot down with accusations of having racial or ethnic bias even when the suggestion is that nobody procreate regardless of their heritage. As a result of this stubborn culture, we are going to continue to see population growth and over-consumption of resources at faster and faster rates all the way up until we make ourselves extinct as a species.
That’s one of the best parodies I’ve ever read. First class. And amusing too
I'm sorry you misunderstood... I'm 100% serious.1 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »It's too late already. Over-consumption of Earth's resources has led to global climate change, which has now reached irreversible levels. The only question is: Will humanity work together in an effective way to slow our inevitable demise? The answer, IMO, is a resounding "no."
Sure, many of us are doing things to be more "green," but the single most effective measure is to have fewer children. Very few of us are making the decision to remain childfree. Those of us who do are constantly pressured by family, friends, and even strangers to change our mind. Conversely, I've never seen it suggested to not procreate outside of groups who are known to already agree with the sentiment. When suggested outside of such groups, one is shot down with accusations of having racial or ethnic bias even when the suggestion is that nobody procreate regardless of their heritage. As a result of this stubborn culture, we are going to continue to see population growth and over-consumption of resources at faster and faster rates all the way up until we make ourselves extinct as a species.
Well then. Thank you for your sacrifice.4
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions