spook Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 Over-population is a myth backed by made up science and subjective reporting. What are you talking about? Less than a billion in 1900 and just over 100 years later more than 7 billion and increasing exponentially. The current trajectory will lead to even more conflict over land and natural resources with consequent suffering. There is plenty more space. Move down the carriage ! Throughout history and back into ancient times people have worried about over-population. And whilst there are places which seem to many to be full, most of the planet is still very sparsely populated. Over-consumption and the poor distribution of living resources is the issue. Not over-population. Science, agriculture, economics and engineering should be focused on providing living solutions which make life better. But that will never happen unless humans start being very much more optimistic again. Today everyone seems obsessed with how dreadful things seem - and the internet is amplifying that destructive pessimism. It's very sad the loss of faith in science to provide bright solutions. Even as late as the early 1970s we were still promised a technological future - in space and in underwater cities eating super foods grown in tanks. It's a pity that so much of the research money seems to have been diverted into doom-mongering. You are, of course, not serious? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 Can't possibly be. "Throughout history" we didn't go from less than a billion to 7 billion in a hundred years. Everything is magnified with a higher population. Natural disasters like earthquake, volcanic eruption, drought, crop failure and famine; even a meteor strike will cause far more catastrophic consequences the larger our population becomes. Aside from which, we are polluting the environment more and more as time goes by. Much nicer life with fewer of us. Cannot think of a good reason for advocating an increase. If we don't curb it, nature will find a way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 The present gross overpopulation may well be resolved by that same overpopulation allowing the coming pandemic - whatever or whenever - to be spread much wider and must faster than otherwise. How anyone could seriously think for a moment that the world is not facing an overpopulation crisis is beyond my ken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 Much nicer life with fewer of us.You first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 How anyone could seriously think for a moment that the world is not facing an overpopulation crisis is beyond my ken. There is no objective definition of correct population size or distribution. There never will be. It is therefore impossible to define over-popuation. It's subjective and imagined. Like Victorian middle class fear of the mob. This idea that they are out there. Clearly there is no shortage of resources. Over-consumption and the poor distribution of living space and resources is certainly an issue. Linked to arbitrary restrictions on the free movement of capital and population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 Much nicer life with fewer of us.You first. Really sensible response. Not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 How anyone could seriously think for a moment that the world is not facing an overpopulation crisis is beyond my ken. There is no objective definition of correct population size or distribution. There never will be. It is therefore impossible to define over-popuation. It's subjective and imagined. Like Victorian middle class fear of the mob. This idea that they are out there. Clearly there is no shortage of resources. Over-consumption and the poor distribution of living space and resources is certainly an issue. Linked to arbitrary restrictions on the free movement of capital and population. Just remind me what planet you're on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 How anyone could seriously think for a moment that the world is not facing an overpopulation crisis is beyond my ken. There is no objective definition of correct population size or distribution. There never will be. It is therefore impossible to define over-popuation. It's subjective and imagined. Like Victorian middle class fear of the mob. This idea that they are out there. Clearly there is no shortage of resources. Over-consumption and the poor distribution of living space and resources is certainly an issue. Linked to arbitrary restrictions on the free movement of capital and population. But why would you want to live in a world with even more people? The ones that are here cannot get along together. We can only sustain our current lifestyle by burning finite fossil fuel. When that is exhausted there will be mass starvation. OK, it may last longer than the most pessimistic forecasts but it definitely won't last forever. Also we are poisoning the planet with the pollution from our lifestyle and the more of us there are, the worse it gets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 But why would you want to live in a world with even more people? I did not say that I do. I don't care either way - and it's not my business to tell other people what they should do. Over-population cannot be defined or measured because optimal population cannot be objectively defined. Any attempt would be bogus. I am opposed to population control per se and arbitrary restrictions in general since I see this as essentially Marxist. I would rather see the issues raised by inequality of resources addressed by economic (trade) and social deregulation. These are freedom issues. In answer to the rest of your negative pessimism - I have a belief in the ability of humans to engineer bold and imaginative solutions to the issues which present themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EORH Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 The American's are not taking any chances, they have flown the Doctors who have Ebola in a special plane back to the US,and then straight into isolation. Trouble is people who are not checked flying from those countries to either the UK or other European countries on planes packed with people could spread it quite easily using the toilet, or shaking hands, so if this happens, we will have a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 But why would you want to live in a world with even more people? I did not say that I do. I don't care either way - and it's not my business to tell other people what they should do. Over-population cannot be defined or measured because optimal population cannot be objectively defined. Any attempt would be bogus. I am opposed to population control per se and arbitrary restrictions in general since I see this as essentially Marxist. I would rather see the issues raised by inequality of resources addressed by economic (trade) and social deregulation. These are freedom issues. In answer to the rest of your negative pessimism - I have a belief in the ability of humans to engineer bold and imaginative solutions to the issues which present themselves. Unbelievable nonsense leading to suffering on a biblical scale. Freedom issues indeed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 But why would you want to live in a world with even more people? I did not say that I do. I don't care either way - and it's not my business to tell other people what they should do.Over-population cannot be defined or measured because optimal population cannot be objectively defined. Any attempt would be bogus. I am opposed to population control per se and arbitrary restrictions in general since I see this as essentially Marxist. I would rather see the issues raised by inequality of resources addressed by economic (trade) and social deregulation. These are freedom issues.In answer to the rest of your negative pessimism - I have a belief in the ability of humans to engineer bold and imaginative solutions to the issues which present themselves. pongo, the effects of overpopulation are already apparent. Decimation of fish populations, wildlife being hunted to extinction, logging faster than tree growth can make up the loss, water shortages, increasing levels of gasses in the atmosphere faster than they can be broken down, the list just goes on and on. You don't come across as an unintelligent person which leads mre to believe (hope?) that you're just winding people up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 +1. Either that or he's the Pope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 Maybe people could actually do a bit of research before engaging in mass panic; http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/ten-things-you-really-should-know-about-ebola Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted August 7, 2014 Share Posted August 7, 2014 Where's Bill and Melinda Gates when you need 'em. I'm sure they won't be long..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.