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?
Options
Replies
-
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
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 911 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions