Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Overpopulation


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Overpopulation Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Overpopulation - 2/16/2008 4:31:40 PM   
faerytattoodgirl


Posts: 5824
Status: offline 		tis why my hair is red instead of my icky blonde! yuck!

_____________________________

I did not reply to your cmail.
I am flawed.
Imperfect.
MUST SPANK!!!
SPAAAAAAAANK!!!

(in reply to Aneirin)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: Overpopulation - 2/16/2008 4:37:53 PM   
luckydog1


Posts: 2736
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline 		Thats even easier LE.  Nuetron bombs.

(in reply to Aneirin)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: Overpopulation - 2/16/2008 8:21:36 PM   
SugarMyChurro


Posts: 1912
Joined: 4/26/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou
Imagine we actually collect enough power from solar and it's other forms like wind and waves, to power everything and leave more left over than we need or want.


This is all possible right now but we have to put some money into it. It's the main reason I oppose resource wars, because resource wars are to throw good money after bad.

Oil and coal are over.

Hemp would be useful in a myriad ways beyond shibari.

We need to live only slightly differently than we do now.

(in reply to NeedToUseYou)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: Overpopulation - 2/16/2008 9:46:34 PM   
NeedToUseYou


Posts: 2297
Joined: 12/24/2005
From: None of your business
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou
Imagine we actually collect enough power from solar and it's other forms like wind and waves, to power everything and leave more left over than we need or want.


This is all possible right now but we have to put some money into it. It's the main reason I oppose resource wars, because resource wars are to throw good money after bad.

Oil and coal are over.

Hemp would be useful in a myriad ways beyond shibari.

We need to live only slightly differently than we do now.



Well, technically it's possible, in reality it won't happen, IMO, for a few reasons, one being the cost to build out the manufacturing capacity would be enormous. Two, right now at the stage they are at with solar anyway, it is still more expensive than burning bones. A couple of companies(nanosolar is the one I think is going to win) are just now producing what they promise will be cheaper than grid power, but the upfront cost is still killer for most people.  In order to have any chance it must be cheaper on a short-term time scale. Wind is pretty good, wave energy is in its infancy.
My 30 year prediction is more based around when people will get it, and build out the capacity to a meaningful level. As in I think in order for us to save ourselves the rate of investment and research would need to increase 10 fold from tommorow.

I hope I'm wrong and people opt out of the standard human model which is to wait until we are standing on the razors edge then go balls to the wall or go ape shit on their neighbor and take his shit(wars). But I doubt it.


I mean it's possible to me right now(start working on energy independence, really), on the same level that it's technically possible to have world peace tommorow, but the probability we'll start in a hard core fashion working toward such goals before the shit hits the fan (what the hell does that mean, shit hit the fan?, never thought about that before), is pretty close to nil, given our history.

(in reply to SugarMyChurro)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: Overpopulation - 2/16/2008 9:47:03 PM   
FangsNfeet


Posts: 3758
Joined: 12/3/2004
Status: offline 		War is good for keeping down the population. It also helps in weeding out the weak. Only the strongest and smartest should prevail for the hope that each generation becomes stronger and smarter.

_____________________________

I'm Godzilla and you're Japan

(in reply to SugarMyChurro)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: Overpopulation - 2/16/2008 9:48:01 PM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline 		I don't think we have to worry about it too much, Nature will take care of it for us.
We now have 300 million people in the U.S.
Can you imagine what 600 million would be like? Or 900 million?
I'm old enough to remember when we had 150 million people in the 1950's.
I think we should attempt to remain at 300 million or below population.
It's crowded enough in this country now.

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to luckydog1)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: Overpopulation - 2/17/2008 12:37:47 AM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FangsNfeet
War is good for keeping down the population.
That is not true. Instead the reverse is true: wars (and also diseases) strongly stimulate population growths.
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: FangsNfeet
It also helps in weeding out the weak.
Part of the civilian population: old people, handicapped or diseased people, and unfortunately - a waste of valuable resources - also healthy poor people and healthy ums. Yes, there are benefits to war - but also some disadvantages.
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: FangsNfeet
Only the strongest and smartest should prevail for the hope that each generation becomes stronger and smarter.
That is complete nonsense. Human evolution is driven primarily by sexual selection by adulterous females, and only in a minor way by the far less effective process of natural selection. Anybody alive today exists because five million years of human evolution already has determined that their genes have survival value, whether they are smart or dumb, kings or poor drudges, soldiers or priestesses, hero's or cowards, strong as an ox or weak as a mouse.

< Message edited by Rule -- 2/17/2008 12:39:46 AM >

(in reply to FangsNfeet)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: Overpopulation - 2/17/2008 4:28:46 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro

What shall we do about the overpopulation problem?

What's the “way out of the fly bottle”?

We are prepared to take your suggestions. Operators are standing by...






Though it is anti-intuitive, based on the evidence, poverty increases the birth rate and wealth decreases the birth rate. It is therefore in the interests of the rich world to allow the poor world to develop their economies rather than exploit them which happens now. We are over harvesting the planet and the rich world won't be able to insulate itself from the consequences.

The other major way to reduce the birth rate is to liberate women. The more educated and more equality in society between the sexes, the more the birth rate falls. It is one of the reasons western societies need immigration to sustain their economies.

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to SugarMyChurro)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: Overpopulation - 2/17/2008 6:09:26 AM   
LadyEllen


Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FangsNfeet

War is good for keeping down the population. It also helps in weeding out the weak. Only the strongest and smartest should prevail for the hope that each generation becomes stronger and smarter.


Maybe old fashioned war with spears and swords did "weed out the weak", but modern warfare is far too technical and modern weapons far too indiscriminate to do so. It is not a test of strength, skill and stamina for the fighter - though these things remain important - but simply a matter of being in the right or wrong place as to whether one is killed or not. One is just as likely to lose all one's strongest, brightest and overall fittest (in the evolutionary theory definition) as one is to lose all one's weakest (same definition) in modern warfare.

In wars which affect the civilian population (civil wars and total wars such as have become the fashion) then your point may have more weight to it in that the weaker (the elderly, the infirm and the sick) are more likely to perish because of food and medicine shortage - but then these people were unlikely to pass their genes on regardless of war and may well have died anyway regardless of war. But again, in the modern setting of bombing of cities and urban warfare, civilians are likey to be killed as indiscriminately as troops are, and "strong" or "weak" is again only judged by a matter of luck.

Warfare is therefore a very inefficient means of controlling populations - almost as inefficient as pandemic. And it costs a great deal of the resources for which we need to reduce population - and so could lead into a constant state of warfare just to feed itself. We must find a more efficient and discriminate means of population control or resource management (though this latter alone is ultimately not enough as has been pointed out). Plus which, war I think we all can agree, is not an attractive proposition even for we who have all the advantages in that activity.

E

_____________________________

In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.

(in reply to FangsNfeet)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: Overpopulation - 2/17/2008 7:28:52 AM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen
The problem with methods which limit the number of children per couple is that they dont work. And unless we are prepared to develop the Brave New World approach to human rights, its simply not acceptable to sterilise people by government order.
It will work, but requires to be strictly enforced. It will not work in a democracy, I think.
 
Females not to give birth until they are 23. Use taxation and other measures to discourage giving birth before and increasing tax benefits and other measures for giving birth later. Allow one in twenty to have more than one child, part of which will be twins: the females of which will be restricted to having one um themselves.
 
It will be doable in the western world, including Japan, in China and in most of the Soviet Union. Trade benefits may persuade other countries to follow suit. In a handful generations world population may be reduced to about four hundred million.
 
The alternative is to no longer oppose our extraterrestrial friends, which will then do their thing and reduce world population by at least half and possibly 95 per cent within one day to one year.

(in reply to LadyEllen)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: Overpopulation - 2/17/2008 7:38:15 AM   
LadyEllen


Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline 		Thats the thing though Rule - if we truly see a need to control the world population in order to make resources sustainable, then ultimately we cannot have democracy interfering with the management of either, and it would require the rigorous and ruthless use of force in order to obtain compliance, alongside a total disregard for any such notions as human rights and individual free choice.

As I see it, we can go down either a radical left wing or radical right wing path, but both would require the same authoritatian approach with loss of rights and freedoms.

One could imagine we were all on an 18th century sailing ship in the ocean with water, food and space in short supply. We could allocate what is available equally to all in small amounts so that it lasts, or we could give the captain and officers more and let the sailors go without and it will also last. Ultimately it requires force to govern and maintain either situation, with no regard for individual rights and choices. Or we could let nature take its course and allow the strongest to take what they want and kill the others in the process.

E

_____________________________

In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.

(in reply to Rule)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: Overpopulation - 2/17/2008 7:51:20 AM   
OrionTheWolf


Posts: 7803
Joined: 10/11/2006
Status: offline 		Nature has a way of correcting itself somehow. I feel that the inherent quality of man for conflict, and natural disaters/causes will be sufficient as time goes. If food becomes more scarce, you will see more conflict, famine, and other things that will keep us in check.


quote:

ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro

What shall we do about the overpopulation problem?

What's the “way out of the fly bottle”?

We are prepared to take your suggestions. Operators are standing by...






_____________________________

When speaking of slaves people always tend to ignore this definition "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence."

(in reply to SugarMyChurro)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: Overpopulation - 2/17/2008 9:10:01 AM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen
if we truly see a need to control the world population in order to make resources sustainable, then ultimately we cannot have democracy interfering with the management of either
Quite. Though Satan and his minions are fond of democracy. A compromise is possible: they may have their democracy, but must yield when overruled by the wise.
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen
it would require the rigorous and ruthless use of force in order to obtain compliance
Satan and his minions are eminently capable to do so.
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen
alongside a total disregard for any such notions as human rights and individual free choice.
Not necessarily so. I am the righteous one, the one-eyed man. If I can get Satan and his minions to heed me, it will not be half as ugly as it might be.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen
As I see it, we can go down either a radical left wing or radical right wing path
Satan and his minions have tried both. Neither worked; ugly societies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen
both would require the same authoritatian approach with loss of rights and freedoms.
Wild animals are free.
People have obligations and responsibilities; they are not free.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen
One could imagine we were all on an 18th century sailing ship in the ocean with water, food and space in short supply.

It is not true that the supply is limited. The Divine will provide. The problem is that stressed populations function at the breaking point and as such may be subject to a catastrofic change of state, i.e. a major disaster, nature correcting itself as OTW says. It is better to function far below the breaking point.
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen
We could allocate what is available equally to all in small amounts so that it lasts
That does not work, as people then lack motivation to excell.
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen
or we could give the captain and officers more and let the sailors go without and it will also last.
That does not work either, as the ship requires sailors. When the lions decide to do away with all the zebra's, the lions are in big trouble. The problem with Satan and his minions always has been that they are far too greedy and bloodthirsty.
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen
Ultimately it requires force to govern
Quite.
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen
with no regard for individual rights and choices.
Within limits. We have traffic limits also.
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen
Or we could let nature take its course and allow the strongest to take what they want and kill the others in the process.
Doesn't work. Creation has already failed at least twice for this reason.

< Message edited by Rule -- 2/17/2008 9:11:28 AM >

(in reply to LadyEllen)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: Overpopulation - 2/17/2008 10:02:38 AM   
subrob1967


Posts: 4591
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline 		*fast reply*

The world is not overpopulated, far from it.

quote:

Planet Earth is loaded with room. We could put the world's entire population into the United States. Doing so would make our population density 1,531 people per square mile. That's a far lower population density than what now exists in New York (11,440), Los Angeles (9,126) and Houston (7,512). The entire U.S. population could move to Texas and each family of four would enjoy 2.9 acres of land. If the entire world's population moved to Texas, California, Colorado and Alaska, each family of four would enjoy nine-tenths of an acre of land.
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/99/Population-Control.htm
I believe that Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin & Oklahoma could easily grow enough grain to feed the world's population, if needed.

(in reply to Rule)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: Overpopulation - 2/17/2008 10:25:34 AM   
LadyEllen


Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline 		Subrob - you are probably right - but the issue isnt space, the issue is resources, the rate we're consuming them at and the sustainability of that consumption with our relatively high world population and prosperity compared to any other time in history.

The first and most important resource for us and for all life, is fresh water - and I believe we are already heading towards a dangerous situation in that respect from what I've heard and read.

E

_____________________________

In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.

(in reply to subrob1967)
Profile   Post #: 55
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Overpopulation Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109