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
-
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)
Just remove all the stupid warning labels from products, revoke all the nanny state laws protecting people from their own stupidity, and let nature take its course. No judgment day or genocide needed that way, self-selection will do the job.
I mean, if you're dumb enough to use a blow dryer in the bathtub, you're probably not bringing much to the party in the first place.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)
Just remove all the stupid warning labels from products, revoke all the nanny state laws protecting people from their own stupidity, and let nature take its course. No judgment day or genocide needed that way, self-selection will do the job.
I mean, if you're dumb enough to use a blow dryer in the bathtub, you're probably not bringing much to the party in the first place.
Or if you don't realize that a bag of peanut might contain peanuts.
5 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »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.
OK, I'll take you seriously for just a second.
1. Where's the evidence that humanity is the cause of this changemidwesterner85 wrote: »It's too late already. Over-consumption of Earth's resources has led to global climate change, which has now reached irreversible levels.
2. Where is the evidence that it's irreversible
3. What specifically should we do to slow the demise?The only question is: Will humanity work together in an effective way to slow our inevitable demise? The answer, IMO, is a resounding "no."
4. How do you know it will work?
Arrogance and eugenics is wrong regardless of whether or not there is a racialist motivation.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.
What specific resources are running out? and when will they run out?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.2 -
stanmann571 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »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.
OK, I'll take you seriously for just a second.
1. Where's the evidence that humanity is the cause of this changemidwesterner85 wrote: »It's too late already. Over-consumption of Earth's resources has led to global climate change, which has now reached irreversible levels.
2. Where is the evidence that it's irreversible
3. What specifically should we do to slow the demise?The only question is: Will humanity work together in an effective way to slow our inevitable demise? The answer, IMO, is a resounding "no."
4. How do you know it will work?
Arrogance and eugenics is wrong regardless of whether or not there is a racialist motivation.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.
What specific resources are running out? and when will they run out?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.
I'm not going to do all your work for you, but here is a summary:
1. Decades of scientific research has shown that humans have directly caused climate change. NASA was first looking into this in the '80s. I'm not going to list all of the research, and it can be very easily found.
2. Once again, lots of research shows this. The threshold for being able to reverse climate change was 400 ppm carbon levels, which was surpassed years ago.
3. As explained, specifically, we should stop producing more people.
4. There was an interesting research study that showed how much effect various choices have. Every other choice - driving a hybrid, using energy efficient appliances, recycling, etc. - was far less effective than having 1 fewer child.
What I'm suggesting, by definition (dictionary.com), is not eugenics because I'm not interested in "improving qualities" of humans. Instead, I believe nobody should reproduce. If this happened (I acknowledge it won't), we could eventually become extinct before the planet is uninhabitable.the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)
Resources being destroyed are too numerous to list. "Natural" disasters as a result of climate change are wiping out animal species and plant habitat (i.e. food sources). Rising sea levels will reduce land size. With a lot of people, very little space to plant crops and pasture livestock will further exacerbate the food shortage and availability of fresh water.1 -
Translation: I can't back up my claims.midwesterner85 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »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.
OK, I'll take you seriously for just a second.
1. Where's the evidence that humanity is the cause of this changemidwesterner85 wrote: »It's too late already. Over-consumption of Earth's resources has led to global climate change, which has now reached irreversible levels.
2. Where is the evidence that it's irreversible
3. What specifically should we do to slow the demise?The only question is: Will humanity work together in an effective way to slow our inevitable demise? The answer, IMO, is a resounding "no."
4. How do you know it will work?
Arrogance and eugenics is wrong regardless of whether or not there is a racialist motivation.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.
What specific resources are running out? and when will they run out?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.
I'm not going to do all your work for you, but here is a summary:
Incorrect. The glaciers are bigger than they were in the 70s-Oh, and if you look at the last 5 years yearly numbers, they're trending back downward.1. Decades of scientific research has shown that humans have directly caused climate change. NASA was first looking into this in the '80s. I'm not going to list all of the research, and it can be very easily found.
And the history of this fear mongering goes back way past the 80s.
I blame the internet and widespread alliteracy. I have in my library books from the 50s citing research that proved that the earth couldn't support more than 2 billion people and the end was nigh. We're at 4 times that number. And the only thing that's changed is the date. We're still 20 years out from the end of all humanity, and the top line number is bigger.
Hypothesized, not proven. And again. That moving target has changed half a hundred times as well.2. Once again, lots of research shows this. The threshold for being able to reverse climate change was 400 ppm carbon levels, which was surpassed years ago.3. As explained, specifically, we should stop producing more people.
4. There was an interesting research study that showed how much effect various choices have. Every other choice - driving a hybrid, using energy efficient appliances, recycling, etc. - was far less effective than having 1 fewer child.
What I'm suggesting, by definition (dictionary.com), is not eugenics because I'm not interested in "improving qualities" of humans. Instead, I believe nobody should reproduce. If this happened (I acknowledge it won't), we could eventually become extinct before the planet is uninhabitable.the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)
Resources being destroyed are too numerous to list. "Natural" disasters as a result of climate change are wiping out animal species and plant habitat (i.e. food sources). Rising sea levels will reduce land size. With a lot of people, very little space to plant crops and pasture livestock will further exacerbate the food shortage and availability of fresh water.
Sea levels are provably not rising.
If you'd read the exchanges above, you'd find that there's more than enough land for 4-10 times our current population, and with the Israeli method enough water for 50x our population.
I've read the relevant studies, and they just don't support anything like the fear mongering you're putting out.2 -
stanmann571 wrote: »
Translation: I can't back up my claims.midwesterner85 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »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.
OK, I'll take you seriously for just a second.
1. Where's the evidence that humanity is the cause of this changemidwesterner85 wrote: »It's too late already. Over-consumption of Earth's resources has led to global climate change, which has now reached irreversible levels.
2. Where is the evidence that it's irreversible
3. What specifically should we do to slow the demise?The only question is: Will humanity work together in an effective way to slow our inevitable demise? The answer, IMO, is a resounding "no."
4. How do you know it will work?
Arrogance and eugenics is wrong regardless of whether or not there is a racialist motivation.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.
What specific resources are running out? and when will they run out?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.
I'm not going to do all your work for you, but here is a summary:
Incorrect. The glaciers are bigger than they were in the 70s-Oh, and if you look at the last 5 years yearly numbers, they're trending back downward.1. Decades of scientific research has shown that humans have directly caused climate change. NASA was first looking into this in the '80s. I'm not going to list all of the research, and it can be very easily found.
And the history of this fear mongering goes back way past the 80s.
I blame the internet and widespread alliteracy. I have in my library books from the 50s citing research that proved that the earth couldn't support more than 2 billion people and the end was nigh. We're at 4 times that number. And the only thing that's changed is the date. We're still 20 years out from the end of all humanity, and the top line number is bigger.
Hypothesized, not proven. And again. That moving target has changed half a hundred times as well.2. Once again, lots of research shows this. The threshold for being able to reverse climate change was 400 ppm carbon levels, which was surpassed years ago.3. As explained, specifically, we should stop producing more people.
4. There was an interesting research study that showed how much effect various choices have. Every other choice - driving a hybrid, using energy efficient appliances, recycling, etc. - was far less effective than having 1 fewer child.
What I'm suggesting, by definition (dictionary.com), is not eugenics because I'm not interested in "improving qualities" of humans. Instead, I believe nobody should reproduce. If this happened (I acknowledge it won't), we could eventually become extinct before the planet is uninhabitable.the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)
Resources being destroyed are too numerous to list. "Natural" disasters as a result of climate change are wiping out animal species and plant habitat (i.e. food sources). Rising sea levels will reduce land size. With a lot of people, very little space to plant crops and pasture livestock will further exacerbate the food shortage and availability of fresh water.
Sea levels are provably not rising.
If you'd read the exchanges above, you'd find that there's more than enough land for 4-10 times our current population, and with the Israeli method enough water for 50x our population.
I've read the relevant studies, and they just don't support anything like the fear mongering you're putting out.
Truth is that certain people (including you) have come to a conclusion and don't care what the science does or does not say. For me to list a bunch of research for you is a waste of time because you are clearly unwilling to review it from a perspective free of bias.3 -
Thanos already took care of it. just glad i made the cut.0
-
midwesterner85 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »
Translation: I can't back up my claims.midwesterner85 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »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.
OK, I'll take you seriously for just a second.
1. Where's the evidence that humanity is the cause of this changemidwesterner85 wrote: »It's too late already. Over-consumption of Earth's resources has led to global climate change, which has now reached irreversible levels.
2. Where is the evidence that it's irreversible
3. What specifically should we do to slow the demise?The only question is: Will humanity work together in an effective way to slow our inevitable demise? The answer, IMO, is a resounding "no."
4. How do you know it will work?
Arrogance and eugenics is wrong regardless of whether or not there is a racialist motivation.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.
What specific resources are running out? and when will they run out?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.
I'm not going to do all your work for you, but here is a summary:
Incorrect. The glaciers are bigger than they were in the 70s-Oh, and if you look at the last 5 years yearly numbers, they're trending back downward.1. Decades of scientific research has shown that humans have directly caused climate change. NASA was first looking into this in the '80s. I'm not going to list all of the research, and it can be very easily found.
And the history of this fear mongering goes back way past the 80s.
I blame the internet and widespread alliteracy. I have in my library books from the 50s citing research that proved that the earth couldn't support more than 2 billion people and the end was nigh. We're at 4 times that number. And the only thing that's changed is the date. We're still 20 years out from the end of all humanity, and the top line number is bigger.
Hypothesized, not proven. And again. That moving target has changed half a hundred times as well.2. Once again, lots of research shows this. The threshold for being able to reverse climate change was 400 ppm carbon levels, which was surpassed years ago.3. As explained, specifically, we should stop producing more people.
4. There was an interesting research study that showed how much effect various choices have. Every other choice - driving a hybrid, using energy efficient appliances, recycling, etc. - was far less effective than having 1 fewer child.
What I'm suggesting, by definition (dictionary.com), is not eugenics because I'm not interested in "improving qualities" of humans. Instead, I believe nobody should reproduce. If this happened (I acknowledge it won't), we could eventually become extinct before the planet is uninhabitable.the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)
Resources being destroyed are too numerous to list. "Natural" disasters as a result of climate change are wiping out animal species and plant habitat (i.e. food sources). Rising sea levels will reduce land size. With a lot of people, very little space to plant crops and pasture livestock will further exacerbate the food shortage and availability of fresh water.
Sea levels are provably not rising.
If you'd read the exchanges above, you'd find that there's more than enough land for 4-10 times our current population, and with the Israeli method enough water for 50x our population.
I've read the relevant studies, and they just don't support anything like the fear mongering you're putting out.
Truth is that certain people (including you) have come to a conclusion and don't care what the science does or does not say. For me to list a bunch of research for you is a waste of time because you are clearly unwilling to review it from a perspective free of bias.
Right back at you.
You've made up your mind and evidence be *kitten*.
I've studied the research and claims, talked to experts. Reviewed the projections, and come to a conclusion.
You've come up with a conclusion, cherry picked evidence, and accepted the word of "experts" who refine the conclusion every 5 years or so when TEOTWAWKI fails to show up on time.
So if you've got something useful or new, present it, and we'll take a look.3 -
stanmann571 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »
Translation: I can't back up my claims.midwesterner85 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »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.
OK, I'll take you seriously for just a second.
1. Where's the evidence that humanity is the cause of this changemidwesterner85 wrote: »It's too late already. Over-consumption of Earth's resources has led to global climate change, which has now reached irreversible levels.
2. Where is the evidence that it's irreversible
3. What specifically should we do to slow the demise?The only question is: Will humanity work together in an effective way to slow our inevitable demise? The answer, IMO, is a resounding "no."
4. How do you know it will work?
Arrogance and eugenics is wrong regardless of whether or not there is a racialist motivation.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.
What specific resources are running out? and when will they run out?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.
I'm not going to do all your work for you, but here is a summary:
Incorrect. The glaciers are bigger than they were in the 70s-Oh, and if you look at the last 5 years yearly numbers, they're trending back downward.1. Decades of scientific research has shown that humans have directly caused climate change. NASA was first looking into this in the '80s. I'm not going to list all of the research, and it can be very easily found.
And the history of this fear mongering goes back way past the 80s.
I blame the internet and widespread alliteracy. I have in my library books from the 50s citing research that proved that the earth couldn't support more than 2 billion people and the end was nigh. We're at 4 times that number. And the only thing that's changed is the date. We're still 20 years out from the end of all humanity, and the top line number is bigger.
Hypothesized, not proven. And again. That moving target has changed half a hundred times as well.2. Once again, lots of research shows this. The threshold for being able to reverse climate change was 400 ppm carbon levels, which was surpassed years ago.3. As explained, specifically, we should stop producing more people.
4. There was an interesting research study that showed how much effect various choices have. Every other choice - driving a hybrid, using energy efficient appliances, recycling, etc. - was far less effective than having 1 fewer child.
What I'm suggesting, by definition (dictionary.com), is not eugenics because I'm not interested in "improving qualities" of humans. Instead, I believe nobody should reproduce. If this happened (I acknowledge it won't), we could eventually become extinct before the planet is uninhabitable.the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)
Resources being destroyed are too numerous to list. "Natural" disasters as a result of climate change are wiping out animal species and plant habitat (i.e. food sources). Rising sea levels will reduce land size. With a lot of people, very little space to plant crops and pasture livestock will further exacerbate the food shortage and availability of fresh water.
Sea levels are provably not rising.
If you'd read the exchanges above, you'd find that there's more than enough land for 4-10 times our current population, and with the Israeli method enough water for 50x our population.
I've read the relevant studies, and they just don't support anything like the fear mongering you're putting out.
Truth is that certain people (including you) have come to a conclusion and don't care what the science does or does not say. For me to list a bunch of research for you is a waste of time because you are clearly unwilling to review it from a perspective free of bias.
Right back at you.
You've made up your mind and evidence be *kitten*.
I've studied the research and claims, talked to experts. Reviewed the projections, and come to a conclusion.
You've come up with a conclusion, cherry picked evidence, and accepted the word of "experts" who refine the conclusion every 5 years or so when TEOTWAWKI fails to show up on time.
So if you've got something useful or new, present it, and we'll take a look.
I'll repeat since you didn't get the message:midwesterner85 wrote: »For me to list a bunch of research for you is a waste of time because you are clearly unwilling to review it from a perspective free of bias.2 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »
Translation: I can't back up my claims.midwesterner85 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »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.
OK, I'll take you seriously for just a second.
1. Where's the evidence that humanity is the cause of this changemidwesterner85 wrote: »It's too late already. Over-consumption of Earth's resources has led to global climate change, which has now reached irreversible levels.
2. Where is the evidence that it's irreversible
3. What specifically should we do to slow the demise?The only question is: Will humanity work together in an effective way to slow our inevitable demise? The answer, IMO, is a resounding "no."
4. How do you know it will work?
Arrogance and eugenics is wrong regardless of whether or not there is a racialist motivation.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.
What specific resources are running out? and when will they run out?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.
I'm not going to do all your work for you, but here is a summary:
Incorrect. The glaciers are bigger than they were in the 70s-Oh, and if you look at the last 5 years yearly numbers, they're trending back downward.1. Decades of scientific research has shown that humans have directly caused climate change. NASA was first looking into this in the '80s. I'm not going to list all of the research, and it can be very easily found.
And the history of this fear mongering goes back way past the 80s.
I blame the internet and widespread alliteracy. I have in my library books from the 50s citing research that proved that the earth couldn't support more than 2 billion people and the end was nigh. We're at 4 times that number. And the only thing that's changed is the date. We're still 20 years out from the end of all humanity, and the top line number is bigger.
Hypothesized, not proven. And again. That moving target has changed half a hundred times as well.2. Once again, lots of research shows this. The threshold for being able to reverse climate change was 400 ppm carbon levels, which was surpassed years ago.3. As explained, specifically, we should stop producing more people.
4. There was an interesting research study that showed how much effect various choices have. Every other choice - driving a hybrid, using energy efficient appliances, recycling, etc. - was far less effective than having 1 fewer child.
What I'm suggesting, by definition (dictionary.com), is not eugenics because I'm not interested in "improving qualities" of humans. Instead, I believe nobody should reproduce. If this happened (I acknowledge it won't), we could eventually become extinct before the planet is uninhabitable.the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)
Resources being destroyed are too numerous to list. "Natural" disasters as a result of climate change are wiping out animal species and plant habitat (i.e. food sources). Rising sea levels will reduce land size. With a lot of people, very little space to plant crops and pasture livestock will further exacerbate the food shortage and availability of fresh water.
Sea levels are provably not rising.
If you'd read the exchanges above, you'd find that there's more than enough land for 4-10 times our current population, and with the Israeli method enough water for 50x our population.
I've read the relevant studies, and they just don't support anything like the fear mongering you're putting out.
Truth is that certain people (including you) have come to a conclusion and don't care what the science does or does not say. For me to list a bunch of research for you is a waste of time because you are clearly unwilling to review it from a perspective free of bias.
Right back at you.
You've made up your mind and evidence be *kitten*.
I've studied the research and claims, talked to experts. Reviewed the projections, and come to a conclusion.
You've come up with a conclusion, cherry picked evidence, and accepted the word of "experts" who refine the conclusion every 5 years or so when TEOTWAWKI fails to show up on time.
So if you've got something useful or new, present it, and we'll take a look.
I'll repeat since you didn't get the message:midwesterner85 wrote: »For me to list a bunch of research for you is a waste of time because you are clearly unwilling to review it from a perspective free of bias.
I got the message: You can't support your claims so you blame me for not embracing your fearmongering.
4 -
stanmann571 wrote: »
If you'd read the exchanges above, you'd find that there's more than enough land for 4-10 times our current population, and with the Israeli method enough water for 50x our population.
About 10 years ago I took a road trip from Cleveland to Las Vegas, driving through Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Colorado, Utah, and Nevada on the way there and Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri, Kentucky, and Ohio on the way back. It is amazing how much unoccupied or sparsely occupied land is out there, there are stretches for hundreds of miles where there is absolutely no trace of civilization on either side of the highway. We have made the choice to settle in urban areas and suffocate ourselves by living on top of each other - there is an incredible amount of space available to sustain untold billions of people comfortably in the US and throughout the world, if we choose to develop it.
1 -
Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »
If you'd read the exchanges above, you'd find that there's more than enough land for 4-10 times our current population, and with the Israeli method enough water for 50x our population.
About 10 years ago I took a road trip from Cleveland to Las Vegas, driving through Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Colorado, Utah, and Nevada on the way there and Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri, Kentucky, and Ohio on the way back. It is amazing how much unoccupied or sparsely occupied land is out there, there are stretches for hundreds of miles where there is absolutely no trace of civilization on either side of the highway. We have made the choice to settle in urban areas and suffocate ourselves by living on top of each other - there is an incredible amount of space available to sustain untold billions of people comfortably in the US and throughout the world, if we choose to develop it.
We may have to get creative with energy production, but Nuclear, Geothermal, Solar, and Satellite Power have some very interesting promise. Hi tech Greenhouses could be installed in the top of New build apartments, to provide produce to the tenants.
We truly live in amazing and wondrous times.1 -
I'm a bit saddened by how dour people are these days about the future. Yeah, I too am concerned about climate change, about misuse of limited resources, about sacrificing the future in favor of the present. I'm not sure how much of that is all about population though. Honestly with the right mindset and application of resources the more people we have the more people we will have to get the job done.
This idea that more people always equals worse I don't think actually pans out in reality. Sometimes more people leads to synergistic capability where the output of useful work is more than the sum. Sometimes more people is just more minds and hands to help deal with problems.
Alternative energy sources are possible...heck they are a reality today, they just need to be implemented. The city I live in is 90%+ powered by renewable energy that has zero emissions at the same time it has explosive growth. Food production for the population is possible, in fact it really already exists its more of a supply chain/nationalism issue. Making those changes will take people and direction. I'd rather focus on getting that direction than on eliminating people. You aren't going to get people to care by talking about how much people are the problem.1 -
Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »
If you'd read the exchanges above, you'd find that there's more than enough land for 4-10 times our current population, and with the Israeli method enough water for 50x our population.
About 10 years ago I took a road trip from Cleveland to Las Vegas, driving through Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Colorado, Utah, and Nevada on the way there and Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri, Kentucky, and Ohio on the way back. It is amazing how much unoccupied or sparsely occupied land is out there, there are stretches for hundreds of miles where there is absolutely no trace of civilization on either side of the highway. We have made the choice to settle in urban areas and suffocate ourselves by living on top of each other - there is an incredible amount of space available to sustain untold billions of people comfortably in the US and throughout the world, if we choose to develop it.
Well to be honest we "choose" to live in cities because of supply chains. Because it is not practical to shunt electricity, water, supplies, materials etc etc all over the place. The idea that you could get all you can get in a city out in bumf*ck nowhere is a little silly as is the idea that everyone is just capable of subsistence farming wherever there is an open field. Even if you could the march of civilization is about getting past just subsiding and although perhaps you could grow enough potatos in a field in texas to survive until you are 50 you aren't going to be getting much else without a city nearby.
I disagree with how pesimisitic a lot of people are but I also disagree with this notion that somehow empty land = resources enough to sustain our current standard of living for billions and billions of more people.4 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »I'm a bit saddened by how dour people are these days about the future. Yeah, I too am concerned about climate change, about misuse of limited resources, about sacrificing the future in favor of the present. I'm not sure how much of that is all about population though. Honestly with the right mindset and application of resources the more people we have the more people we will have to get the job done.
This idea that more people always equals worse I don't think actually pans out in reality. Sometimes more people leads to synergistic capability where the output of useful work is more than the sum. Sometimes more people is just more minds and hands to help deal with problems.
Alternative energy sources are possible...heck they are a reality today, they just need to be implemented. The city I live in is 90%+ powered by renewable energy that has zero emissions at the same time it has explosive growth. Food production for the population is possible, in fact it really already exists its more of a supply chain/nationalism issue. Making those changes will take people and direction. I'd rather focus on getting that direction than on eliminating people. You aren't going to get people to care by talking about how much people are the problem.
I agree that there are things that we should be mindful of and even a few that may be concerning, But I'm 43 this year, and I've outlived TEOTWAWKI 6 or 8 times already. So I'm vigorously skeptical of gloom and doom predictions that are retreads of those I've seen already. I'm certainly open to considering possibilities and risk management, but the "OMG, we've got to cut population by 1/2-2/3-Back to 1920" doom and gloom is exhausting and I'd rather chase possibilities and opportunities.
Aaron is more likely to be bankrupt and homeless due to municipal mismanagement and a financial crisis in Seattle than my grandchildren are to worry about overpopulation and rising sea levels.
Sorry Aaron.1 -
stanmann571 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »I'm a bit saddened by how dour people are these days about the future. Yeah, I too am concerned about climate change, about misuse of limited resources, about sacrificing the future in favor of the present. I'm not sure how much of that is all about population though. Honestly with the right mindset and application of resources the more people we have the more people we will have to get the job done.
This idea that more people always equals worse I don't think actually pans out in reality. Sometimes more people leads to synergistic capability where the output of useful work is more than the sum. Sometimes more people is just more minds and hands to help deal with problems.
Alternative energy sources are possible...heck they are a reality today, they just need to be implemented. The city I live in is 90%+ powered by renewable energy that has zero emissions at the same time it has explosive growth. Food production for the population is possible, in fact it really already exists its more of a supply chain/nationalism issue. Making those changes will take people and direction. I'd rather focus on getting that direction than on eliminating people. You aren't going to get people to care by talking about how much people are the problem.
I agree that there are things that we should be mindful of and even a few that may be concerning, But I'm 43 this year, and I've outlived TEOTWAWKI 6 or 8 times already. So I'm vigorously skeptical of gloom and doom predictions that are retreads of those I've seen already. I'm certainly open to considering possibilities and risk management, but the "OMG, we've got to cut population by 1/2-2/3-Back to 1920" doom and gloom is exhausting and I'd rather chase possibilities and opportunities.
Aaron is more likely to be bankrupt and homeless due to municipal mismanagement and a financial crisis in Seattle than my grandchildren are to worry about overpopulation and rising sea levels.
Sorry Aaron.
Hah...guess its potato subsistance farming for me....better go stake my claim in that rich Texas soil.0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »
If you'd read the exchanges above, you'd find that there's more than enough land for 4-10 times our current population, and with the Israeli method enough water for 50x our population.
About 10 years ago I took a road trip from Cleveland to Las Vegas, driving through Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Colorado, Utah, and Nevada on the way there and Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri, Kentucky, and Ohio on the way back. It is amazing how much unoccupied or sparsely occupied land is out there, there are stretches for hundreds of miles where there is absolutely no trace of civilization on either side of the highway. We have made the choice to settle in urban areas and suffocate ourselves by living on top of each other - there is an incredible amount of space available to sustain untold billions of people comfortably in the US and throughout the world, if we choose to develop it.
We may have to get creative with energy production, but Nuclear, Geothermal, Solar, and Satellite Power have some very interesting promise. Hi tech Greenhouses could be installed in the top of New build apartments, to provide produce to the tenants.
We truly live in amazing and wondrous times.
...satellite power?0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »
If you'd read the exchanges above, you'd find that there's more than enough land for 4-10 times our current population, and with the Israeli method enough water for 50x our population.
About 10 years ago I took a road trip from Cleveland to Las Vegas, driving through Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Colorado, Utah, and Nevada on the way there and Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri, Kentucky, and Ohio on the way back. It is amazing how much unoccupied or sparsely occupied land is out there, there are stretches for hundreds of miles where there is absolutely no trace of civilization on either side of the highway. We have made the choice to settle in urban areas and suffocate ourselves by living on top of each other - there is an incredible amount of space available to sustain untold billions of people comfortably in the US and throughout the world, if we choose to develop it.
Well to be honest we "choose" to live in cities because of supply chains. Because it is not practical to shunt electricity, water, supplies, materials etc etc all over the place. The idea that you could get all you can get in a city out in bumf*ck nowhere is a little silly as is the idea that everyone is just capable of subsistence farming wherever there is an open field.
Nonsense. The entirety of the US was "bumf*ck nowhere" a few hundred years ago, and now hundreds of millions of people live in areas where there was zero infrastructure originally.
Florida was mostly a useless swamp and Arizona was an uninhabitable desert at the beginning of the 20th century - air conditioning was invented and now almost 30 million people live in those states, and real estate is at a premium. Las Vegas was a place with no existing water supply and yet built an infrastructure that will accommodate 40 million tourists this year. Almost any place in the world (within reason) can be developed into a thriving living area with sustainable resources if people have the vision to develop it.0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »
If you'd read the exchanges above, you'd find that there's more than enough land for 4-10 times our current population, and with the Israeli method enough water for 50x our population.
About 10 years ago I took a road trip from Cleveland to Las Vegas, driving through Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Colorado, Utah, and Nevada on the way there and Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri, Kentucky, and Ohio on the way back. It is amazing how much unoccupied or sparsely occupied land is out there, there are stretches for hundreds of miles where there is absolutely no trace of civilization on either side of the highway. We have made the choice to settle in urban areas and suffocate ourselves by living on top of each other - there is an incredible amount of space available to sustain untold billions of people comfortably in the US and throughout the world, if we choose to develop it.
We may have to get creative with energy production, but Nuclear, Geothermal, Solar, and Satellite Power have some very interesting promise. Hi tech Greenhouses could be installed in the top of New build apartments, to provide produce to the tenants.
We truly live in amazing and wondrous times.
...satellite power?
Still theoretical, but wireless transmission from solar collectors or other geosync generators. Still mostly the realm of Sci-Fi, but interesting in theory. Most likely will never be viable, but some of the applications on a larger and smaller scale are promising, some would require major tech overhauls,0 -
Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »
If you'd read the exchanges above, you'd find that there's more than enough land for 4-10 times our current population, and with the Israeli method enough water for 50x our population.
About 10 years ago I took a road trip from Cleveland to Las Vegas, driving through Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Colorado, Utah, and Nevada on the way there and Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri, Kentucky, and Ohio on the way back. It is amazing how much unoccupied or sparsely occupied land is out there, there are stretches for hundreds of miles where there is absolutely no trace of civilization on either side of the highway. We have made the choice to settle in urban areas and suffocate ourselves by living on top of each other - there is an incredible amount of space available to sustain untold billions of people comfortably in the US and throughout the world, if we choose to develop it.
Well to be honest we "choose" to live in cities because of supply chains. Because it is not practical to shunt electricity, water, supplies, materials etc etc all over the place. The idea that you could get all you can get in a city out in bumf*ck nowhere is a little silly as is the idea that everyone is just capable of subsistence farming wherever there is an open field.
Nonsense. The entirety of the US was "bumf*ck nowhere" a few hundred years ago, and now hundreds of millions of people live in areas where there was zero infrastructure originally.
Florida was mostly a useless swamp and Arizona was an uninhabitable desert at the beginning of the 20th century - air conditioning was invented and now almost 30 million people live in those states, and real estate is at a premium. Las Vegas was a place with no existing water supply and yet built an infrastructure that will accommodate 40 million tourists this year. Almost any place in the world (within reason) can be developed into a thriving living area with sustainable resources if people have the vision to develop it.
You are acting like people who live in a certain area are supported by only that area....they aren't. The population of New York city is 8.2 million people and they live in ~450 sq miles of land....but they aren't supported by only 450 sq miles of land. NYC didn't become a mega-city because the land they live on is really good at growing potatoes, it is because it was a hub for the transport of resources from elsewhere...other land.
Even people who live in a 1 acre plot don't receive all of their resources from that 1 acre...they are supported by much more land than that.
Pointing to a bunch of empty land relative to populated land and acting like that empty land would support more people based on how much land people currently physically occupy is not realistic at all.
A few hundred years ago the population of the United States was a lot smaller than it is today. We may live in densely populated zones but we certainly use a lot more land than we did back then.
We "live on top of eachother" again because it is extremely inefficient to ship goods long distances when instead you can ship them to a single location that can then distribute to a large number of people. That should be pretty obvious. Spreading everyone out would require a LOT more energy usage.3
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