12 Jul 06
1 edit
Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole"The Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians began in 1990 as local groups in Washington DC and Minneapolis. At first it was called "Gays Against Abortion", but the name was changed in early 1991 to reflect our membership of both gay men and lesbians. Today PLAGAL strives to promote a respect for life within the gay community and encourage gay and lesbian participation in the pro-life cause.
Last I heard, gays weren't as reproductively prolific as pro-lifers.
Our membership includes women and men of various sexual orientations, political affiliations, and geographic locations -- all committed to raising awareness of the pro-life ethic as consistent with the gay and lesbian struggle for human rights."
http://www.plagal.org/
12 Jul 06
Originally posted by ivanhoeAnd they make up what proportion of gays and lesbians?
"The Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians began in 1990 as local groups in Washington DC and Minneapolis. At first it was called "Gays Against Abortion", but the name was changed in early 1991 to reflect our membership of both gay men and lesbians. Today PLAGAL strives to promote a respect for life within the gay community and encourage gay and lesbian par ...[text shortened]... nsistent with the gay and lesbian struggle for human rights."
http://www.plagal.org/
14 Jul 06
2 edits
Originally posted by ivanhoeIn this sense every city would be an "area of overpopulation"
Excessive population of an area to the point of overcrowding, depletion of natural resources, or environmental deterioration.
In this sense every city would be an "area of overpopulation"
How about a lower consumption level per head of the population in Western countries ?
LJ: "As Pawnokeyhole correctly pointed out, it's really a matter of consum will drop. Look at Germany for instance. The population will shrink in the near future.
Sure, and if you want to play that game, then the socially optimal amount of 'overpopulation' is non-zero. But the definition you were employing I find fundamentally inadequate since it ignores environmental/ecological considerations that are relevant to the discussion. I understand that, given there are so many mouths to feed, it is of concern how we should feed them; and your redistribution of consumption would ease that problem. But I don't see how a simple redistribution of consumption will ease the problem of overpopulation if total consumption remains too high. Before, you were addressing the validity of the claim "there are too many humans" by only considering whether or not they can all be fed in theory. That seems too narrow an approach to me.
Diligent effort at lowering consumption, especially in wealthy areas, as well as environmentally friendly technologies are good ideas, clearly; but I am still wondering, when all things are considered, do you think it is true that there are too many humans?
14 Jul 06
Originally posted by LemonJello"But the definition you were employing I find fundamentally inadequate since it ignores environmental/ecological considerations that are relevant to the discussion."
[b]In this sense every city would be an "area of overpopulation"
Sure, and if you want to play that game, then the socially optimal amount of 'overpopulation' is non-zero. But the definition you were employing I find fundamentally inadequate since it ignores environmental/ecological considerations that are relevant to the discussion. I understand ...[text shortened]... , when all things are considered, do you think it is true that there are too many humans?[/b]
I have no intention of ignoring the environmental/ecological issues at all.
"But I don't see how a simple redistribution of consumption ... "
I am not merely advocating a "simple redistribution of consumption".
I'm advocating a redistribution of World Income. Now that is, seen in an economical perspective, a totally different kettle of fish and it is certainly not "simple". In order to do this we need to develop the underdeveloped countries. We can do this without ignoring the ecological issues.
"Chirac warns of 'African flood'
Thousands of Africans are risking their lives to reach Europe
French President Jacques Chirac has warned that Africans "will flood the world" unless more is done to develop the continent's economy.
In a TV interview, Mr Chirac said nearly 50% of Africa's 950m population was under 17 and that by 2050 there would be two billion Africans.
He said the necessary resources had to be made available to help Africa.
"We have an immense problem [in Africa] ... which is that of development," he said in the Bastille Day interview."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5181080.stm
" ... do you think it is true that there are too many humans?"
... "too many" in comparison to what ?
15 Jul 06
Originally posted by techsouthWe like to play God.
If nature brings drought to an area, the rest of the world can easily supply food. Only politics get in the way.
Drought is natures way of saying that the land is over burdened. Nature tries to cut the population to manageable numbers, the land regenerates and so populations regenerate. This is a continuous cycle. Without it, species over population becomes a problem. As it is, we don't allow nature to take its course, so the population continues to grow even when the land can't manage it, so the land never gets a chance to regenerate.
This is a problem because many people believe that humans (as higher beings) do not need to share the same rules of life as every biological creature does. It would be like us DECIDING that the laws of aerodynamics no longer apply to us.
D
15 Jul 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIf you chose to go off a very high cliff in a contraption which ignored the laws of aerodynamics, it might appear for a very long time that you were indeed flying.
"There are now too many human beings"
He asserts this with (presumed) informed authority on the matter, and yet despite four decades of explosive growth following his dire predictions, the sky remains.
Have you failed to notice that about 200 species a day are being made extinct, that rivers are more and more poisoned, that fish stocks are in serious trouble, that hurricanes are getting stronger and stronger, that flooding/drought is getting worse, etc, etc? There is no single fact which says "We are killing the earth", as you seem to think there should. You have to take into account all the little things to realise that no, we're not actually flying at all, as the ground gets closer and closer. Or, you can continue to ignore the truth and lie to yourself that we're still flying, as the ground gets closer and closer, faster and faster.
The earths population was about 1 billion in 1900, 3 billion in 1960 and 6 billion in 2000. It will be 12 billion in 2030. People will still say, "but look, the sky remains." Maybe when the earth's population is 24 billion in 2045 will people like you start saying, "its ok, the sky is still there, but it looks a little different."
D