Support NeoGAF

[bonercop]

Not really what? Human population can keep growing indefinitely? Don't think so buddy. I never apportioned blame, go argue with whoever you are mad at.

Here's the problem with what you're saying: the human population doesn't grow indefinitely. We're going to hit a plateau within 2 decades at 9-10 billion and the majority of these people will be born in third world countries.

Saying population growth is the issue is drawing attention away from what really matters -- the way the first world treats resources(especially the US).

 

[Drazgul]

Not really what? Human population can keep growing indefinitely? Don't think so buddy.

Well there's indefinite space in... space.

 

[paile]

I wonder what advancing medical research will have on population growth because you know, much of the problems that plague the third world today like poor sanitation and disease and access to clean water, they're going to be addressed. And things like heart disease and cancer and ageing in general, medical science has them in their sights as well.

 

[A Link to the Past]

I couldn't agree with, say, killing people to limit population, but removing any notion of religion in government related to contraception and abortion. That shit needs to be encouraged, and hard.

 

[bonercop]

I wonder what advancing medical research will have on population growth because you know, much of the problems that plague the third world today like poor sanitation and disease and access to clean water, they're going to be addressed. And things like heart disease and cancer and ageing in general, medical science has them in their sights as well.

Haha, that's quite optimistic. Still, even if it does happen, birthrate drops very sharply, very fast as quality of life increases.

 

[opoth]

I couldn't agree with, say, killing people to limit population, but removing any notion of religion in government related to contraception and abortion. That shit needs to be encouraged, and hard.

This. It's fairly obvious to the average person that the Catholic church's stance against contraception/abortion is a simple matter of not wanting less hands contributing to the collection plate.

 

[Dead Man]

Here's the problem with what you're saying: the human population doesn't grow indefinitely. We're going to hit a plateau within 2 decades at 9-10 billion and the majority of these people will be born in third world countries.

Saying population growth is the issue is drawing attention away from what really matters -- the way the first world treats resources(especially the US).

The human population MAY plateau. 10 billion is still too many. I have never once denied that resources allocation is fucked. It is. But saying the fix is just for westerners to use less is not really going to do very much is it?

So again, go argue with whoever you are mad at.

Well there's indefinite space in... space.

LOL, I think you may be onto something.

 

[TwiztidElf]

Came to thread expecting exaggerated collective human self loathing.
Did not leave disappointed.

 

[SolidusDave]

That the earth can sustain a few more billion humans is not the point at all.
The point is that we are not alone. Us expanding, killing of tons of species, basically terraforming&polluting earth to our liking could be interpreted as a slow mass extinction event for life on our planet (like a fucking asteroid).
(On the other hand, like after other ELEs, if/when we collapse, there can be even more advanced species filling all those empty ecological niches)

 

[paile]

Haha, that's quite optimistic.

It's simply the inevitable result of ever more efficient and cheaper technology. Look at how mobile phones have spread to the third world and caused a revolution in places like Kenya. Cheap and widely available systems that filter clean drinking water and improve sanitation are inevitable.

But I agree, population will plateau at some point.

 

[speculawyer]

This. It's fairly obvious to the average person that the Catholic church's stance against contraception/abortion is a simple matter of not wanting less hands contributing to the collection plate.

And in the same manner, the reason that they want priests to be celibate is so the priests don't have any children to support or inherit things from the priest. Yes, that is the reason. Long ago, priests did marry and have kids.

 

[ProfessorLobo]

I'm not sure where the idea of over population came from. Populations are self regulating. When there's not enough food to go around, people tend to starve to death. When food and energy supply increases, population grows. How about worrying about the people hungry today, rather than some future event of 'overpopulation' as though it's some sort of asteroid hurtling toward the earth that has to be dodged.

The notion that humans are a plague is completely foreign to me. A plague to what? If it's a plague, there's no cure for it, so why even bother with the debate?

 

[Dead Man]

I'm not sure where the idea of over population came from. Populations are self regulating. When there's not enough food to go around, people tend to starve to death. When food and energy supply increases, population grows. How about worrying about the people hungry today, rather than some future event of 'overpopulation' as though it's some sort of asteroid hurtling toward the earth that has to be dodged.

The notion that humans are a plague is completely foreign to me. A plague to what? If it's a plague, there's no cure for it, so why even bother with the debate?

Planning is for chumps!

 

[ProfessorLobo]

Planning is for chumps!

Planning for what?

 

[IronChef]

I love how those are apparently the only two options. You either single-handedly shape the course of human history through your brilliance, or you might as well not exist. Really, it's always impressive to me how this kind of wildly outdated method of looking at history still exists.

You don't have to be a special snowflake to influence something. If you can live with not being at the center of the attention, you can be a cog in a machine.

Never said there was X options. There will be an infinite range of "options" you can take with regard to how much you think you can make an impact and what you do based on your assessment of yourself. Whether that impact is to the degree you imagine is another thing entirely.


That website promotes a worthwhile cause - if you believe such organizations and their actions will really make a significant difference, then by all means participate. I don't discourage anyone from doing so. You do what you think you can contribute to the good of society, and I'll do what I think I can contribute.

 

[bonercop]

The human population MAY plateau. 10 billion is still too many.
I have never once denied that resources allocation is fucked. It is. But saying the fix is just for westerners to use less is not really going to do very much is it?

The richest 20% of the world use 80% of the resources.

Yeah, no, that's the closest thing to an easy fix we have.

 

[zoukka]

The human population MAY plateau. 10 billion is still too many. I have never once denied that resources allocation is fucked. It is. But saying the fix is just for westerners to use less is not really going to do very much is it?

It's not the final solution, but it would do a lot.

 

[Neo C.]

There is nothing more important than our own survival. Everything else is secondary. But the point Attenborough is making is that unchecked consumption of the Earth's resources and destruction of our ecosystem in a misguided extreme of survivability. Ensuring our survival requires more than rampant consumption and breeding. We're part of an ecosystem and we need to make sure we're not damaging that ecosystem or putting ourselves in a position we can no longer support. Looking out for the Earth is looking out for us.

Humans in all their arrogance have a tendency to swing to either side of the pendulum. We either vehemently believe our 'progress' and consumption should be unrestricted, as the Earth is there to serve us. Or we willingly endorse self destruction of our species under the deluded belief that an Earth we applied subjective measurements of worth to will be "better off", as if we have any authority on the matter.

It's about finding a position in the middle. Letting go of our ego about what needs to be conserved in regards to the environment and accepting we do need resources and we do need to consume, but also restraining our ego on how much we should be consuming and what freedoms our species really needs.

I agree and don't see why people attack Attenborough. All he's said was more education, more birth control, more environment protection, less CO2 output etc.

And yes, for the last several decades we have been a plague in the sense of rapid growth. While it's true that the growth will slow down in the future, I don't think it's bad to have more education and birth control now.

Most if not all developed nations are below sustainable rates.
Rates around the globe are dropping. This is what it is based off, it's not just pulling a number out of your ass. China's baby boomer generation is coming in 15-20 years. When that dies off that will be a huge chunk of the Chinese population. Developed countries are all an aging population. So in 100+ years when everyone currently alive is dead, then yes it is easily conceivable to see that the population will massively shrink.

On the other hand, the life expectaction goes up constantly in the industrialized world, perhaps with the exception of the US. And birth rate is climbing again in some industrialized countries. We won't reach 2.1 per female, but it won't stay 1.5 either.

It's funny because average Chinese and Indian can only obtain a fraction of natural resource compared to an American or European. So who is the real plague here?

That's only because there are hundreds of million peasants in China and India. Take them away from the equation, the average chinese in the urban area probably uses more resources than the average European. The 23 of the 26 most polluted cities are in China, go figure.

 

[GCX]

That's only because there are hundreds of million peasants in China and India. Take them away from the equation, the average chinese in the urban area probably uses more resources than the average European. The 23 of the 26 most polluted cities are in China, go figure.

You do realize much of the pollution in China comes from factories that make products European and American markets?

 

[Enco]

Came to thread expecting exaggerated collective human self loathing.
Did not leave disappointed.

This.

Well really I wasn't expecting GAF to be on this level but damn. I'm guessing part of it is because someone loved to GAF made the comment. Imagine if someone not so liked said it.

 

[timetokill]

Earth doesn't need saving. It's a rock floating somewhere in the universe, and it'll be just that whether we're here or not.

 

[jordan0386]

Just have to ask these nut jobs are they willing to die for the cause.

When they stutter in their response, slit their throat. That way, the next moron who wants to kill off humans will keep his mouth close.

Because, honestly, nobody wants to die before their time.

 

[Dead Man]

The richest 20% of the world use 80% of the resources.

Yeah, no, that's the closest thing to an easy fix we have.

It's not the final solution, but it would do a lot.

Simple, not easy. I agree it would solve a lot of problems. How in the hell do you get it to happen though? You can't just cut off 75% of the resources a cultures is used to consuming and divert them to others. It will not help the culture you are taking from, and many resources are not just remove from point a and use at point b types of exercises.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Stop people dying by ensuring they never live.

 

[Monocle]

Humans are the only plague I know of that has produced symphonies, poems, and telescopes. So...either there's something wrong with Mr. A's definition or I'm totally out of the loop.

Came to thread expecting exaggerated collective human self loathing.
Did not leave disappointed.

But some people suck and life isn't perfect, therefore the universe should snuff out our filthy wretched species! Shut up, it makes perfect sense. Scum!

Grrr, cancer and goatfucking. Filth! Filth everywhere! I wonder what's on TV?

 

[Dead Man]

Awful lot of folks in here thinking human are some magical self regulating creature with a special place in the universe or something.

 

[DirtRiver]

You guys are suggesting we should control whether people can or cannot have kids, or murder old people as some have suggested, because planet Earth has some kind of value besides that which we are able to make out of it to sustain our lives.

You guys seriously think we should go back to the age of the caves and live short brutal little lives because we are "raping" the planet"? News flash here, we either create the resources we need to survive from what we can gather from Earth, or we die. As Richard Feynman was fond of saying, if you don't like it, go somewhere else.

 

[Castor Krieg]

I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You're a plague and we are the cure.

So we are like the Zerg?

FUCK YEAH!

It's not the final solution, but it would do a lot.

But I don't want to have less. Come at me bro.

 

[justjohn]

Theyve been preaching this overpopulation crap for centuries now and most of the developed world is still throwing half their food away.
Their dogs and cats eat better food than poor people in poor countries and the world keep spinning.

Im sure its been said lots of times in this thread but its not numbers but allocation of resources. We're 7 billion yet more than 80% of us have nothing to do with the so called problems overpopulation causes but we sure will get the blame though.

 

[Dead Man]

You guys are suggesting we should control whether people can or cannot have kids, or murder old people as some have suggested, because planet Earth has some kind of value besides that which we are able to make out of it to sustain our lives.

You guys seriously think we should go back to the age of the caves and live short brutal little lives because we are "raping" the planet"? News flash here, we either create the resources we need to survive from what we can gather from Earth, or we die. As Richard Feynman was fond of saying, if you don't like it, go somewhere else.

The funny thing is if we don't find a balance, living in caves is exactly what our descendants will be doing, because we will have overshot the limit the planet (or region) can sustain and then we crash.

 

[zoukka]

Simple, not easy. I agree it would solve a lot of problems. How in the hell do you get it to happen though? You can't just cut off 75% of the resources a cultures is used to consuming and divert them to others. It will not help the culture you are taking from, and many resources are not just remove from point a and use at point b types of exercises.

It's all about education and the general atmosphere of acceptance in the society really. I mean it's perfectly ok to waste food in rich countries and that creates an atmosphere that's not healhty or encourages people to even care about the enviroment. We take too much for granted and it's sickening. This society will then go and produce super selfishl people like Castor here.

But I don't want to have less. Come at me bro.

 

[ArynCrinn]

I agree and don't see why people attack Attenborough. All he's said was more education, more birth control, more environment protection, less CO2 output etc.

And yes, for the last several decades we have been a plague in the sense of rapid growth. While it's true that the growth will slow down in the future, I don't think it's bad to have more education and birth control now.

In reality I doubt it's much of a referendum on "planetary health" but rather human species longevity. The planet likely makes no real distinction or preference for human life, or life in general. And will likely be here long after we pass into extinction. So I'm not entirely sure why it's classifying as anything benefiting the planet in abstract?

But the idea that we should take care of our home and control our numbers doesn't seem like anything other than common sense. It's likely a fact, although a very provocative notion that we already have too many people lurching around. Far too many to effectively educate, too many to effectively care for and see prosper lifelong, and far too many to have a dynamically balanced ecosystem with the rest of nature. This will simply get worse. If we could get just a 15% conviction rate (in the US) that saw women as a group make a conscious choice to limit their offspring to one child we could drastically cut the number of people within 40 or so years. If it became a international movement we could get even better. But obviously that would be a big discussion and I'd argue a extremely powerful choice for feminism worldwide.

So I don't see the controversy?

 

[ThreeSixty]

Overpopulation or population control is an issue that humanity is yet solve. Here's hoping some of our brightest minds solve it. It's going to have to be something beyond what China is doing.

 

[Dead Man]

It's all about education and the general atmosphere of acceptance in the society really. I mean it's perfectly ok to waste food in rich countries and that creates an atmosphere that's not healhty or encourages people to even care about the enviroment. We take too much for granted and it's sickening. This society will then go and produce super selfishl people like Castor here.

This is true. However, I would make two points. Food overconsumption is not the only problem. Minerals, arable land, water. These are all things that we can use less of, but there is a minimum that is needed to sustain the current industrial society. It is possible to use less, but since there will always need to be a certain amount used it behooves us not to exand our population beyond what is feasible to supply. Secondly, a few posters have talked about food wastage, and the west wastes a lot of food. But suppose the west stops wasting that food. That would mean it was either not grown in the first place, or was sold in other markets. What other markets will pay western prices for food? So it means reducing capacity in western production areas. It's not as simple as eat less, and then everyone else can eat more.

 

[Castor Krieg]

This society will then go and produce super selfishl people like Castor here.

Whatever makes you sleep better at night.

 

[speculawyer]

Just have to ask these nut jobs are they willing to die for the cause.

When they stutter in their response, slit their throat. That way, the next moron who wants to kill off humans will keep his mouth close.

Because, honestly, nobody wants to die before their time.

How can you so profoundly misinterpret such a simple message?

 

[Dead Man]

How can you so profoundly misinterpret such a simple message?

I thought we were ignoring that one.

 

[bonercop]

Simple, not easy. I agree it would solve a lot of problems. How in the hell do you get it to happen though? You can't just cut off 75% of the resources a cultures is used to consuming and divert them to others. It will not help the culture you are taking from, and many resources are not just remove from point a and use at point b types of exercises.

How about if we cut off 5%? Maybe 10%? Over a period of 10 years? Maybe start phasing out coal super-aggressively, so that global warming won't hit us as hard? What if we enforce a limit on the amount of cattle a farmer can hold?

It's not easy, you're right. But it's the most effective way to deal with the problem.

 

[zoukka]

Whatever makes you sleep better at night.

Did I say something there that contradicted with your post?

 

[Dead Man]

How about if we cut off 5%? Maybe 10%? Over a period of 10 years? Maybe start phasing out coal super-aggressively, so that global warming won't hit us hard? What if we enforce a limit on the amount of cattle a farmer can hold?

It's not easy, you're right. But it's the most effective way to deal with the problem.

I am in favour of all of that. But it will not solve the problem if the population keeps expanding. Those need to be combined with improved contraception access and education, improving the standard of general education in every country, and yes, incentives to have smaller families.

Edit: Except the cattle thing, I don't see the value in that.

Did I say something there that contradicted with your post?

Nah, it's just his standard response methodology.

 

[liquidtmd]

Saying population growth is the issue is drawing attention away from what really matters -- the way the first world treats resources(especially the US).

You're right...but dire distribution of resources isn't limited to the first world. The Governments of many such Third World situated countries, in particular Africa and Asia, are plagued by infighting, greed and the corrupt.

Birth Control and over population are serious issues though - the two points you make aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[speculawyer]

I'm not sure where the idea of over population came from. Populations are self regulating. When there's not enough food to go around, people tend to starve to death. When food and energy supply increases, population grows. How about worrying about the people hungry today, rather than some future event of 'overpopulation' as though it's some sort of asteroid hurtling toward the earth that has to be dodged.

Because it would be better to avoid future human suffering.

Call me crazy but I don't like human suffering and would like to prevent it. But maybe I'm just weird that way.

 

[Deleted member 1235]

in the future countries will address this themselves by limiting immigration and controlling the population themselves. probably won't work well. countries like AUS/NZ should be alright as they could fall back to farming and locally sourcing most stuff, if they implemented population control correctly they could probably survive the worst while everyone starves/wars.

 

[Crub]

Looks like mold.

 

[bonercop]

Edit: Except the cattle thing, I don't see the value in that

It's honestly quite amazing how much damage cows cause, lol. My personal favorite is them being responsible for 18% of greenhouse gas emission because they fart so much.

like AUS/NZ should be alright as they could fall back to farming and locally sourcing most stuf.

sounds like the perfect target for invasion!

 

[Nicktendo86]

I think he's getting a bit senile.

GTFO

 

[Sorc3r3r]

No, we are not, the people that think like him instead can become a plague for other humans.

 

[Dead Man]

It's honestly quite amazing how much damage cows cause, lol. My personal favorite is them being responsible for 18% of greenhouse gas emission because they fart so much.

Oh, yeah, I understand that (was kind of shocked about the methane thing), but limiting it per farmer seems an inefficient way to limit them overall.

 

[Gustav]

Then kill yourself you self loathing asshole.

 

[DirtRiver]

The funny thing is if we don't find a balance, living in caves is exactly what our descendants will be doing, because we will have overshot the limit the planet (or region) can sustain and then we crash.

Even if that's true, the solution is most definitely not to put shackles on our ankles, it is precisely the opposite. The immense quality of living we have today was arrived at by people being free to pursue their values and their vision for the future, it wasn't by proscribing what people can or cannot do, or whether a farmer can have thirty cows or thirty-one, or even whether you can live to be 80-years-old or only 60.

Then again, for that to happen people would have to think highly of the possibilities human life has, not think of themselves as "mold", a "plague", a "disease", which unfortunately is the prevailing mindset today.