by Candid » Mon Nov 29, 2010 7:13 am
dav1307 wrote:The arguments that you make can sometimes have at their core, a type of anti-human sentiment. And if you are continually worried about the future, when will you enjoy the present?
Dave, I have a great love of humanity and have always spent a lot of my time helping people I meet to get what they want. Eighty-odd years in physical form can be a great adventure or a nightmare, and I find if I focus on happiness it's a whole lot more fun.
I've also spent many years in Australia where there have been a number of environmental mistakes. The thoughtless introduction of cane toads and indian mynas comes to mind.
The argument for killing as many of these introduced species as we possibly can is that they kill off many native species, either directly (as food) or indirectly, by being more competitive for the same resources.
The people who advance this argument go blank when asked which species kills other species most efficiently; which species is the unrivalled master at taking over and rubbishing more and more territory?
Speaking as a human being, I adore my two-year-old niece. Speaking as a biologist, I consider biodiversity (number of species present in an ecosystem) not just desirable but essential, for all sorts of reasons.
The cane toad is hated everywhere across the top end of Australia because we know eventually it will be the only amphibian we have and will have wiped out most of the smaller reptiles as well. Yet we have no problem with the fact that human incontinence will ultimately wipe out every species but ourselves.
There is breathtaking ignorance in the notion that we have enough water for another billion people. Much of the planet is already arid (useless for agricultural purposes) and human growth is ruining more land at an alarming rate. Thousands of people die every day because they don't have access to water. But they're in third world countries so that doesn't matter, hmm? Closer to home, a whole year's crops can be lost because there isn't enough water to keep them alive.
I've never said I'm continually worried about the future; I just observe trends. I'm child-free myself, so unlike Dr Suzuki I don't have to worry about the world my grandchildren will inherit. Another 30 or so years at the most I'll be out of here, and since I'm an urban dweller I don't expect to die of thirst. You know: I'm all right, Jack, so pull the ladder up? I'd like to be more responsible than that, but when the planet is a blasted wasteland a couple of hundred years from now, what will I care?
It is a
love of humanity that compels me to point out that our numbers are increasing way too fast and that our standard of living is being steadily eroded.
by systemsanalysis » Mon Nov 29, 2010 8:27 am
Candid wrote:It is a love of humanity that compels me to point out that our numbers are increasing way too fast and that our standard of living is being steadily eroded.
It's the crux of the matter, & a very pertinent point.
There are of course much much better ways of doing things - but humans being the hairless talking apes that they are; the better ways aren't being followed; & so increasing population numbers combined with human stupidity is doing what we can see it is doing; destroying the planet that will ultimately lead to the destruction of ourselves.
I agree with you too candid - I don't have children to worry about either; nor the worry of what their grandchildren will be doing. Given another 30 years or so (who knows when?) - then I'm out of here too. Humanity is collectively insane as far as I'm concerned - I'll be glad to leave.
by thefool » Mon Nov 29, 2010 3:02 pm
systemsanalysis wrote:Personally I think that humanity is headed for the brink - That things will carry on largely as they are; with the same worsening problems for around another 200 years - then bang - most of us get wiped out & society collapses.
I truly hope it wont have to come to this. One thing is for certain however, we CANNOT teach people how to better cooperate, support and tolerate each other for mutual benefit, as long as we have an economic system based on egotism and greed.
systemsanalysis wrote:It's an important question as to whether there is some orchestrated global conspiracy(s) of some kind or another. I don't know what to make of 9/11?; & I've looked at every theory going on it. I know on the day it happened that my gut reaction was that it was orchestrated in some way. We simply don't know the full facts of what went on & probably never will do.
That is the most sensible thing I've ever heard about the 9/11 events.
Annie7788 wrote:If we had enough physical resources then there wouldn't be a population problem. It's not about money but about resources. The Earth can only produce so much food at any one time.
I wont be baited into this again, instead I'll simply say this. When countries with starving citizens are SELLING food to other countries to try and level their economy, then what is the real cause of hunger? Bad governing? Bad economics? Or a lack of physical resources?
Annie7788 wrote:the monetary system already appears to be collapsing and the effects just illustrate how slavishly reliant we are on the global economy. That is not an easy situation to change without more people losing much of their wealth as well as many pensioners losing pensions etc & governments losing financial security. The energy crisis may never materialise, we will just be forced to rely more on nuclear and other sources.
The economic system is designed to make people utterly dependant on it, if they weren't, it wouldn't work. Would you work 40 hours a week on a landfill if you didn't need the money? I think this point makes itself.
Distribution of wealth will do nothing. Wealth is meaningless because money does not represent resources, it only represents potential labour. Think of Bill Gates' fortune, it's vast, huge, but it's all just money. Does this mean that somewhere on the ocean there is an entire fleet of container ships full of Bill Gates' stuff representing his wealth in natural resources? Of course not... it just means that Bill Gates could pay people to produce all this stuff for him, if he wanted...
The energy crisis, if it does materialise, will simply materialise as an economic crisis. Prices will soar, the lower working class will stop being able to heat their homes, fuel their cars, governments will respond by injecting a large chunk of their budget into energy relief funds for lower income families, it wont be nearly enough and economic crisis will ensue.
Now we'll be looking at a private energy market which will use the high energy prices to build extremely expensive renewable energy plants. I have no idea what happens after that, likely a saturation of the energy market will occur as energy becomes literally infinite and the market will collapse again.
Nuclear power is not a solution, and governments know this, which why they haven't already switched to nuclear power completely, and are instead building things like geoplants and windmills, which produce much less energy, and are more expensive... but provide a long term solution, as opposed to nuclear power which just proposes to cover everyone in nuclear waste!!
Annie7788 wrote:Perhaps the answer is to consume less?
This is the ultimate answer... and it's ENTIRELY counter-productive to the economy. I think this fact alone makes an irrefutably case against the economic system, and how it just plain and simply "has to go", or has to change so drastically it's hardly recognisable.
Annie7788 wrote:
Motivated wrote:Yes, & who is influencing the future economic & political leaders? Mothers & fathers! Family is where it all starts, so it's in our future best interest to pay attention & to attend to the families' needs & strengths & properly value the importance of parents.
not just mothers and fathers but society as a whole. Culture, peer group, the media these days.
Exactly... Willingly or not, society in it's entirety is raising the next generation, and this is how it should be, but I feel we are sending the wrong message. Look at what is happening out there! We try to teach our children responsibility, but we refuse to take it for ourself and the world around us. We try to teach our children to be fair and generous, and yet we all condone and encourage greed and exploiting those less fortunate than ourselves. We try to teach out children family values, but we spend most of our time in the pursuit of materiel possession.
What we are teaching our children is hypocrisy...
And while some parents, and families, on an individual level do manage to teach their children meaningful lessons, and do manage to implement those lessons into their personal lives, they will always be ice skating uphill against the overwhelming message that is coming from the world around them, which tells a very different story.
by thefool » Mon Nov 29, 2010 4:24 pm
I think the real question is what will happen if things start going bad at the home front? We can't just keep spending borrowed money unchecked forever... sooner or later we're going to have to start paying back, and there's going to be a lot of cold and hungry people when that happens.
by dav1307 » Mon Nov 29, 2010 5:34 pm
If there is another global economic crisis, I think it will wipe out the middle class even more. And at the same time perhaps, most countries will experience very high inflation, and you thus might see currency crises and collapses. And then some people, like some world leaders, will probably try to say that the world needs to become even more integrated than before, whereas I see global integration as a main problem in the first place.
We'll see how good my predictive powers are, lol.
by __Tigger__ » Mon Nov 29, 2010 11:19 pm
The following 45 minute video is a real eye opener. Especially in the current financial climate... my American and Irish friends have been brought to tears after finally understanding what the hell is going on after watching this video and understanding some of the basics of money which amazingly few people question beyond a 2 year olds perspective (money = stuff)... not trying to be demeaning but that's what's happening.
If you only watch one video this year, watch this one.
"Money as debt"
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 3770802849
by Candid » Tue Nov 30, 2010 9:13 pm
Here's a glimpse of the future based on simple mathematics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkp ... re=related
From this thread alone you can see why popularity-dependent politicians shy away from the key question of exponential growth.
"It is the nature of the human species to reject what is true but unpleasant, and to embrace what is obviously false but comforting." - H. L. Mencken, 1926
by thefool » Wed Dec 01, 2010 11:14 am
Candid wrote:Here's a glimpse of the future based on simple mathematics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkp ... re=related
And as is typical for any simple equation that attempts to predict human behaviour, it's far too simplified to have an actual meaning in the real world.
In a pure mathematical world the human race would far exceed 7 billion by now, but it doesn't, because there are factors which no useful mathematical formula can ever incorporate.
Just looking at the past century, we can account for almost 70 million deaths counting only world wars. Those events alone would have introduced a significant, and unpredictable element to the equation. Such a baby-boom after ww2 where the population actually soars in reaction to a sudden decrease.
Now we're not even considering nations that have constant ongoing civil wars since the beginning of the 20th century.
There's also the FACT that human population growth has been steadily declining for the past 5 years, and this on a global scale. If the current trend keeps up, it will take us another 40 years to reach the 10 billion mark, which is a lot longer than the simple mathematics suggest.
And the fact that certain areas have always had higher population growth than others such as the middle east, Africa, south america and asia, and that obviously there are factors causing this (poverty for one, religious motivation could be another prominent factor, culture is for certain the biggest motivator). Factors which can change, or adjust based on awareness.
Also, there is the increasing sterility issue, and the inherent fertility problems that come with monogamy. Ie, certain couples are simply incapable of conceiving children, even though both parters are perfectly capable of conceiving with other mates.
Long story short; It's not that simple, and it's not that inevitable... and we don't need to start killing people to stave off catastrophe either. Now sooner or later, we will outgrow planet earth, but then that was never in question now was it? And by that time (if wise up) there will be plenty of other places for us to populate. The research that will allow human beings to one day conceive and give birth in space is already being done. It's just a matter of time before the first person born in space become a reality.
Were not quite there yet though, and in the interim, the first thing to do, which is going to solve A LOT of problems, not just alleged overpopulation, is to stop wasting resources, and start using them efficiently.
Because the real problem is scarcity, and people being short sighted enough to believe that if there were less people, there would be "more to go around". Thereby of course entirely neglecting the fact that it's the abundance of human productivity (through the abundance of human beings) which has created EVERYTHING YOU SEE, EAT, AND CONSUME EVERY DAY.
And we can follow that line of reasoning into almost every single argument one could make about overpopulation. Such as the scarcity of living space. There IS NO SCARCITY OF LIVING SPACE!!! Oh but there is... in certain areas! Have you ever been to Chili? Muchos fraking living space extravaganza over there! And the view, jeez! But you don't want to live there, because it's dirt poor nation, and there's little or no facilities for you to use.
There's only one argument to support overpopulation that I will consistently concede to, and that is the fact that sooner or later, overpopulation (or at least uncomfortably large population) is going to be a FACT. Whether it's 50 years from now, or 500, I dare not say because I recognise that I am simply incapable of doing the math involved, and while i'm not delusional enough to think that if i can't do the math, no one can, the fact remains that I have not seen one mathematician alive today come even close to formulation an equation that would show an accurate prediction of human population growth over the next century.
And until they do... I call "doomsday sensationalism" on the whole issue!