Debates
13 Sep 11
14 Sep 11
Originally posted by rwingettWe have essentially moved to a new environment with a greater food supply. It is little different from an invasive species in todays world which finds itself in an environment where its rapid reproduction is not controlled. It spreads rapidly until the limiting factor is reached.
Then why doesn't any other species permanently overpopulate their environment? They're all getting the same messages from their respective DNA that we are. The problem is not the DNA, but rather because we control our own food supply we have exempted ourselves from any external limiting factors on population growth. My entry in the sermon competition in the spirituality forum deals with this very topic.
We too will eventually reach a limit - and quite possibly experience a population crash at that time, though I am hoping that won't happen.
14 Sep 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadAn invasive species affects one ecosystem. Reaching our limiting factor will have devastating consequences for every ecosystem around the world.
We have essentially moved to a new environment with a greater food supply. It is little different from an invasive species in todays world which finds itself in an environment where its rapid reproduction is not controlled. It spreads rapidly until the limiting factor is reached.
We too will eventually reach a limit - and quite possibly experience a population crash at that time, though I am hoping that won't happen.
14 Sep 11
Originally posted by rwingettThe consequences have nothing to do with having children though.
It does if you are aware of the consequences and could prevent them.
The consequences are due to humans living beyond their means in nearly every respect. They create a system in which they live, which the Earth cannot sustain.
Much like if you lived 8.000 years ago (or 200 if you're a creationist) you adapted to your environment and the environment kept you in check.
The same is the case now. We've only managed to extend the environment's "in check keeping". In the end it will all average out.
14 Sep 11
Originally posted by shavixmirWe are not adapted to our environment. On the contrary, we have adapted our environment to us. There's a big difference. In the former, an environment imposes a limitation on how many of a certain species it can support and remain healthy. In the latter, by exempting themselves from such limitations, mankind can spawn exponentially until the whole environment crashes in ruins around him.
The consequences have nothing to do with having children though.
The consequences are due to humans living beyond their means in nearly every respect. They create a system in which they live, which the Earth cannot sustain.
Much like if you lived 8.000 years ago (or 200 if you're a creationist) you adapted to your environment and the environment kept y ...[text shortened]... managed to extend the environment's "in check keeping". In the end it will all average out.
So pumping out an endless procession of snot-nosed urchins has a direct impact upon the sustainability of the Earth. We can either learn to live within our means, or we can have fewer children. Guess which one is more achievable?
14 Sep 11
Originally posted by rwingettThe create policies to discourage overpopulation. But to say that individuals shouldn't choose to procreate because there are too many people is a bizarre and impossible-to-work strategy.
There aren't 7 billion+ monkeys that are destroying their environment.
How successful do you think we'll be in propagating our DNA when the planet becomes uninhabitable? In the long term, overpopulation is a losing strategy.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 199245
14 Sep 11
Originally posted by invigorateI don't think so at this point, because I really believe that we have the resources for the current population - with more equity and better social organization around the world. But it is a question for the future. Obviously we don't have infinite capacity. So the question is, how many are too many? Some think it's "totalitarian" to even ask the question, let alone propose some solution.
With finite resources does this world need that many more humans?
Is it more selfish not have children and lead your life on exactly your own terms?
Ted Knight on the Mary Tyler Moore Show argued that we needed to have all the children we could to increase our chances of some kid coming up with a solution.
14 Sep 11
Originally posted by rwingettObviously, when the planet becomes uninhabitable, people will die (animals too). Large scale mass extinctions have happened before (without human help). We should be more worried about feeding people who are starving to death now, which we absolutely have the resources to do.
There aren't 7 billion+ monkeys that are destroying their environment.
How successful do you think we'll be in propagating our DNA when the planet becomes uninhabitable? In the long term, overpopulation is a losing strategy.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 199245
14 Sep 11
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYes, and economic development, with more economic options for women, tends to lead to reduction in population increase rates - sometimes even in decrease rates if you count birth alone (as opposed to immigration). You don't need to pop out children to work the farm if you have business in town.
The world can quite easily sustain a much larger population than current levels. It's just a matter of organizing it properly. In any case, the question is irrelevant since most rich countries already have stable or only slightly increasing populations.
14 Sep 11
Originally posted by rwingettWe can terraform other planets.
We are not adapted to our environment. On the contrary, we have adapted our environment to us. There's a big difference. In the former, an environment imposes a limitation on how many of a certain species it can support and remain healthy. In the latter, by exempting themselves from such limitations, mankind can spawn exponentially until the whole environme ...[text shortened]... rn to live within our means, or we can have fewer children. Guess which one is more achievable?
14 Sep 11
Originally posted by invigorateEveryone wants to believe that the world population is going to naturally level off at 9 billion, or 10 billion. Of course. That would relieve us from having to alter our lifestyle in any significant way. We can continue to live our destructive, materialist lifestyles and things will just magically work out in the end. Sound too good to be true? It probably is. My guess is that these best-possible-scenario population estimates will miss the mark by a wide margin.
In this TED video the excellent Hans Rosling explains how world population should level off at 9 Billion - in about 2050 - with IKEA boxes. Highly recommended
http://www.gapminder.org/videos/population-growth-explained-with-ikea-boxes/
15 Sep 11
Originally posted by sh76Why is it bizarre? It's not necessarily that people shouldn't procreate, it's that they should procreate less than they currently do. I see nothing bizarre about saying so. And there should be policies to discourage it. Maybe tax penalties for every child beyond the first.
The create policies to discourage overpopulation. But to say that individuals shouldn't choose to procreate because there are too many people is a bizarre and impossible-to-work strategy.